RENEWAL RECOMMENDATION - Charter school · • Foster communication and volunteerism, both within the school and extending to the larger community. Although the standards detailed

RENEWAL RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the charter of Syringa Mountain School (SMS) be renewed for a five (5) year term, provided that SMS agrees to comply with certain conditions outlined below. The failure to fulfill these conditions could result in further proceedings by the Commission.

Recommended conditions:

1. By spring 2020, SMS will achieve ISAT math and ELA proficiency rates that meet or exceed the state average math and ELA proficiency rates. Proficiency rates will be based on the appealed data set. References to the ISAT shall apply to any other statewide assessment selected to replace the ISAT by SBAC in the event of state-level requirement changes.

Regardless of whether or not SMS agrees to fulfill the specific condition above, SMS remains responsible for meeting the terms and conditions contained in its signed Performance Certificate effective July 1, 2017, through June 30, 2022, which will incorporate the performance framework adopted by the Commission in 2017.

SMS CHARTER RENEWAL EXHIBIT A

School Overview SUMMARY

Syringa Mountain School (SMS) is a Waldorf-inspired, brick-and-mortar public charter school located in Hailey, Idaho and serving grades K-8. The charter states that SMS’s educational program will focus on the whole child, nurturing students’ imaginations and social skills, as well as their intellects. Second-language, music, storytelling, handwork, farming, and nature take precedence over technology, particularly in the early years. Teacher looping, which keeps students and teacher groups together for multiple years, is a key component of the program.

The charter includes the following goals:

• Achieve a three star or higher accountability rating. • Enable students to compete academically with their traditionally schooled peers. (The petition

noted that the Waldorf method often results in slower reading acquisition in the early elementary years, but students at Waldorf schools typically match or exceed their traditional peers’ reading skills by 8th grade.)

• Ensure student mastery of the Common Core and Idaho State Standards as demonstrated by whole child rubrics, annual narrative reports, and individual student portfolios.

• Institute a thriving and complete Waldorf-inspired program, including Waldorf training for all teachers.

• Model financial stability by maintaining properly funded programs, affordably financed facilities, and fairly compensated staff.

• Offer a beautiful, eco-friendly campus and biodynamic farm and wilderness education program. • Foster communication and volunteerism, both within the school and extending to the larger

community.

Although the standards detailed in the performance certificate supplant those in the charter, these commitments represent the nature and anticipated effectiveness of the school promised by its founding group. The petition for SMS was approved by the PCSC in August 2013, contingent upon additional, minor revisions to bring the document up to the established standard. Petition approval became final in October 2013, at which time all revisions were considered completed satisfactorily. In December 2013, the PCSC approved an amendment permitting a larger initial enrollment cap and faster growth rate. SMS opened in Fall 2014.

MISSION

Syringa Mountain School offers Waldorf-inspired, liberal arts and arts-integrated education, incorporating sustainable living practices and experiential learning in a K-8 public school setting. Each child will impart meaning and direction to their lives, through cultivating their intellectual, physical, emotional, social and creative capacities in natural learning environments. Through a supportive community of peers, parents and teachers, each child will become a confident, self-directed and engaged learner, invested in his/her own education.

SMS CHARTER RENEWAL EXHIBIT B B.1

LEADERSHIP

Name Title Term Gregory Bloomfield Board Chair 01/13 -01/17 Randy Flood Vice Chair 03/16 - 03/19 Stefanie O’Neil Secretary 09/15 - 09/18 Bobbi Filbert At Large 06/16 - 06/19 Amy Jonas Benson At Large 03/16 - 03/19 Jessica Teitje At Large 03/16 - 03/19 Phoebe Pilaro At Large 06/16 - 06/17 Christine Fonner Administrator N/A

SMS CHARTER RENEWAL EXHIBIT B B.2

Academic Performance Summary SMS has consistently achieved ISAT proficiency rates that are significantly lower than the state average and the lowest in the surrounding district by a large margin. In all demographic categories for which the SDE collects data (non-white, LEP, special needs, and FRL), SMS’s student population is significantly less diverse than the surrounding district and the state as a whole. DURING CURRENT PERFORMANCE CERTIFICATE TERM

Year Academic & Mission-Specific

Accountability Rating 2014-15* Critical 2015-16* Critical *2014-2016 academic results reflect use of the ISAT by SBAC. The framework was designed based on the Star Rating System and former ISAT. KEY DESIGN ELEMENTS

Element Evident? Use of a Waldorf-inspired program including:

• Teacher looping such that cohorts of students move through multiple grades together with the same classroom teacher Yes

• Application of curriculum designed to be developmentally appropriate and therapeutic for students Yes

• Implementation of a schedule organized to include Main Lesson, Practice periods, and Specialty Subjects Yes

• Balance of academic studies with artistic and social activities Yes • Alignment with the Idaho Common Core State Standards and Idaho State

Standards Partial

• Fostering of strong parent involvement in the school, including provision of parent educational opportunities

Yes

• Creation of a safe learning environment through a positive but firm disciplinary approach Yes

The school’s annual performance reports, provided in Exhibits G1 and G2, include details regarding proficiency rates, graduation rate, and outcome comparisons with surrounding districts and the state.

SMS CHARTER RENEWAL EXHIBIT C

Operational Performance Summary SMS’s operational performance has been moderate throughout the life of the school, with high administrative turnover and persistent underenrollment.

DURING CURRENT PERFORMANCE CERTIFICATE TERM

ENROLLMENT HISTORY

Year of Operation Anticipated Enrollment (in charter)

Worst-Cast Enrollment (in petition)

Actual Enrollment

1 (2014-15) 250 120 131 2 (2015-16) 310 140 131 3 (2016-17) 370 160 136

BOARD AND ADMINISTRATIVE TURNOVER

SMS has experienced significant administrative turnover, hiring three administrators/administrative teams during its initial three years of operation. Board membership has remained reasonably stable; four new members (two replacements and two additional) were added in 2015-16.

Year Operational Accountability Rating

2014-15 Good Standing 2015-16 Good Standing

The school’s annual performance reports, provided in Exhibits G1 and G2, contain details including the nature of any operational shortcomings and contextual information, when applicable.

SMS CHARTER RENEWAL EXHIBIT D

Financial Performance Summary SMS has struggled financially throughout the life of the school, due in large part to chronic under-enrollment and over-hiring. Extensive fundraising has kept the school viable for its initial two years of operation, but this is likely unsustainable over the long term.

In June 2016, the PCSC issued a Letter of Fiscal Concern regarding SMS, indicating that the PCSC had reason to believe that the school may not remain fiscally sound for the remainder of the performance certificate term. That letter remains in effect. The current year’s budget continues to rely upon extensive fundraising success (in excess of $460,000).

DURING CURRENT PERFORMANCE CERTIFICATE TERM

Year Financial Accountability Rating

2014-15 Critical 2015-16 Good Standing

The school’s annual performance reports, provided in Exhibits G1 and G2, include details regarding outcomes on specific, industry-based near-term and long-term financial measures.

SMS CHARTER RENEWAL EXHIBIT E

Renewal Process SYRINGA MOUNTAIN SCHOOL

EVENT DATE NOTES Performance Certificate Executed by School and Authorizer

10/10/13 Certificate execution was preceded by a series of meetings with school leadership, during which certificate and framework terms were discussed and customized.

2014-15 Annual Performance Report Issued to School 1/2016 A draft of the report was initially issued in December 2015;

the school did not provide a response.

Renewal Process Orientation Meeting 3/3/16

PCSC staff met with school leadership (all school board members and administrators were invited) to discuss the renewal process and highlight any significant concerns/issues.

Renewal Process Follow-up Letter Provided to School 3/4/16 This letter summarized material covered during renewal

process orientation meeting Renewal Guidance & Application Provided to School 5/17/16 The statutory deadline for issuance of renewal guidance and

applications is November 15. PCSC Pre-Renewal Letter Provided to School 6/9/16 This letter reminded schools of the renewal process, data

submission opportunities, and performance expectations. Auxiliary Data Submission Opportunity (optional) 7/15/16 The school did provide auxiliary performance data.

Pre-Renewal Site Visit 10/5/16 An independent reviewer joined PCSC staff for a one-day site visit to the school.

2015-16 Annual Performance Report Issued to School 11/15/16

No draft was issued due to timing of data availability. However, the school had opportunity to respond in its renewal application. The annual report summarized the school’s performance record to date and provided notice of any weaknesses or concerns that may jeopardize the school’s position in seeking renewal.

Renewal Application Received from School 12/15/16 The statutory deadline for renewal applications is December

15.

SMS CHARTER RENEWAL EXHIBIT F

Idaho Public Charter School Commission 304 North 8th Street, Room 242 Boise, Idaho 83702 Phone: (208) 332-1561 chartercommission.idaho.gov Alan Reed, Chairman Tamara Baysinger, Director Distributed January 2017

Syringa Mountain School

ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 2015-2016

SMS CHARTER RENEWAL EXHIBIT G1 G1.1

Introduction

Each year, Idaho’s Public Charter School Commission (PCSC) issues a performance report to every school in its portfolio. The annual report serves several purposes:

1. To provide transparent, data-driven information about charter school quality; 2. To ensure that charter school boards have access to clear expectations and are provided

maximum opportunity to correct any deficiencies prior to their renewal year; and 3. To inform mid-term decision making, such as the evaluation of charter amendment

proposals.

This report contains an overview of the school, including its history, mission, leadership, and demographics. The overview is followed by the school’s performance framework, including outcomes for the most recently completed school year.

The performance framework is comprised of four sections: Academic, Mission-Specific, Operational, and Financial. Each section contains a number of measures intended to evaluate the school’s performance against specific criteria. The scorecard pages of the framework offer a summary of the school’s scores and accountability designation ranging from Honor (high) to Critical (low).

Due to significant and ongoing changes to the state’s school accountability system, many of the academic measures in the performance framework could not be scored this year. Data for all of the growth measures and most of the post-secondary readiness measures was unavailable. As a result, academic framework scores cannot reflect the intended scope of information.

Additionally, although ISAT Math and English Language Arts proficiency data was available, it was gathered using an assessment that the state adopted subsequent to the framework’s development. It cannot be determined at this time whether or not the rating categories within each framework measure are appropriate in the context of the new assessment.

For these reasons, we have eliminated academic framework scores from this report and instead provided comparisons of the public charter schools’ proficiency rates to those of the state as a whole, as well as to area schools that serve similar grade ranges. In some cases, comparisons cannot be provided because the data is masked per state law or statistical irrelevance.

To facilitate a clearer context for the academic results contained in this report, the demographic, enrollment, and school leadership data provided is from the 2015-16 school year. Updated enrollment and school leadership information is available upon request from the school or PCSC office.

Renewal-year schools have an opportunity to correct or clarify their framework outcomes in their renewal applications.

Public charter school operations are inherently complex. For this reason, readers are encouraged to consider the scores on individual measures within the framework as a starting point for gaining full, contextualized understanding of the school’s performance.

Additional information about how the performance framework was developed and how results may be interpreted is available on the PCSC’s website: chartercommission.idaho.gov.


School Overview

Mission Statement

Syringa Mountain School offers Waldorf-inspired, liberal arts and arts-integrated education, incorporating sustainable living practices and experiential learning in a K-8 public school setting. Each child will impart meaning and direction to their lives, through cultivating their intellectual, physical, emotional, social and creative capacities in natural learning environments. Through a supportive community of peers, parents and teachers, each child will become a confident, self-directed and engaged learner, invested in his/her own education.

Key Design Elements

Use of a Waldorf-inspired program including: Teacher looping such that cohorts of students move through multiple grades together with the same classroom teacher; Application of curriculum designed to be developmentally appropriate and therapeutic for students; Implementation of a schedule organized to include Main Lesson, Practice Periods, and Specialty Subjects; Balance of academic studies with artistic and social activities; Alignment with the Idaho Common Core State Standards and Idaho State Standards; Fostering of strong parent involvement in the school, including provision of parent educational opportunities; and Creation of a safe learning environment through a positive but firm disciplinary approach.

School Contact Information

Address: 4021 Glenbrook Drive Hailey, ID 83333 Phone: (208) 806-2880

Surrounding District Blaine County

Opening Year 2014

Current Term October 10, 2013 – June 30, 2017

Grades Served K-8

Enrollment Approved: 520 Actual: 131


School Leadership (2015-2016) Role

Greg Bloomfield Chair

Phoebe Pilaro Vice Chair

Ben Rogers Treasurer

Paul Bates Member

Bobbi Filbert Member

Mende Coblentz Education Director

Svea Grover Operations Director

Kristin Funk Administrator

School Surrounding District State

Non-White 10.53% 43.33% 23.84%

Limited English Proficiency 3.01% 33.12% 8.61%

Special Needs 5.26% 10.43% 9.76%

Free & Reduced Lunch 33.83% 41.37% 47.27%

Academic Measure Result Percentage of Students Meeting or Exceeding Proficiency in Math %

Percentage of Students Meeting or Exceeding Proficiency in English Language Arts %

Percentage of Students Meeting or Exceeding Proficiency in Science %

Graduation Rate (4-year cohort data from 2015) N/A



Name of School: Syringa Mountain School, Inc. Year Opened: 2013 Operating Term: 10/10/2013-6/30/17 Date Executed: 10/10/2013

• Indicators, measures, and metrics for student academic proficiency;

• Indicators, measures, and metrics for student academic growth;

• Indicators, measures, and metrics for college and career readiness (for high schools); and

• Indicators, measures, and metrics for board performance and stewardship, including compliance with all applicable laws, regulations and terms of the

performance certificate.

Academic:

A high percentage (60%) of a school’s total score for the Academic & Mission Specific Accountability Designation reflects the school’s performance on a set of

academic measures. These measures are the same for all non-alternative schools. The “Meets Standard” rating for each measure is designed to align closely with

state minimum standards as established in Idaho’s ESEA waiver and Star Rating System.

Mission-Specific:

A significant portion (40%) of a school’s total score for the Academic & Mission Specific Accountability Designation reflects the school’s performance on a set of

mission-specific measures. These measures may be academic or non-academic in nature, but must be objective and data-driven. The number and weighting of

mission-specific measures should be established during one-on-one negotiations between the school and authorizer.

During their first Performance Certificate term only, schools authorized to open in or before Fall 2014 may choose to opt out of the Mission-Specific section of the

framework. Schools choosing to opt out of Mission-Specific measures for their first term agree that the weight of those measures will be placed instead on the Academic

section, which then becomes the single, primary factor considered for purposes of renewal or non-renewal.

Operational:

Operational indicators comprise a secondary element for consideration during the renewal process. While each school will receive a score in the operational

section, this score should not be used as the primary rationale for non-renewal unless the non-compliance with organizational expectations is severe or systemic.

Particularly for a school whose academic performance meets or exceeds standards, poor results in this area are more likely to lead to a conditional renewal

decision than to non-renewal.

The Performance Framework is divided into four sections: Academic, Mission-Specific, Operational, and Financial. The Academic and Mission-Specific sections comprise the

primary indicators on which most renewal or non-renewal decisions will be based. The Operational and Financial sections contribute additional indicators that will, except in

cases of egregious failure to meet standards, be considered secondary.

PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL COMMISSION - PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK

Idaho’s charter school legislation requires each public charter school authorizer to develop a Performance Framework on which the provisions of the Performance Certificate

will be based. Performance Frameworks must clearly set forth the academic and operational performance indicators, measures, and metrics that will guide the authorizer’s

evaluations of each public charter school, and must contain the following:

Performance Framework Structure

The measurable performance targets contained within the framework must require, at a minimum, that each school meet applicable federal, state, and authorizer goals for

student achievement. This Performance Framework was adopted by the Public Charter School Commission (PCSC) on August 30, 2013, and is intended for use with non-

alternative public charter schools authorized by the PCSC.

Introduction


Remediation:

Schools achieving at this level may be recommended for non-renewal or conditional renewal, particularly if operational and/or financial outcomes are poor.

Replication and expansion proposals are unlikely to succeed. The Framework places schools that earn 31-54% of the combined academic and mission-specific

points possible in this accountability designation. It is possible for 3-star schools with poor mission-specific outcomes, 2-star schools, or 1-star schools with strong

mission-specific outcomes to receive a remediation designation.

Critical:

Schools achieving at this level face a strong likelihood of non-renewal, particularly if operational and/or financial outcomes are also poor. Replication and

expansion proposals should not be considered. The Framework places schools that earn less than 30% of the combined academic and mission-specific points

possible in this accountability designation. It is possible for 1-star schools or 2-star schools with poor mission-specific outcomes to receive a Critical designation.

Financial:

Financial indicators comprise a secondary element for consideration during the renewal process. While each school will receive a score in the financial section,

this score should not be used as the primary rationale for non-renewal unless the school’s financial state at the time of renewal is dire. Particularly for a school

whose academic performance meets or exceeds standards, poor results in this area are more likely to lead to a conditional renewal decision than to non-renewal.

The PCSC may also elect to renew a financially troubled school that is clearly providing a high quality education, but notify the SDE of the situation so that the

payment schedule may be modified in order to safeguard taxpayer dollars.

Honor:

Schools achieving at this level in all categories (academic, mission-specific, operational, and financial) are eligible for special recognition and will be recommended

for renewal. Replication and expansion proposals are likely to succeed. The Framework places schools that earn 75-100% of the combined academic and mission-

specific points possible in this accountability designation. It is possible for 5-star schools, high-range 4-star schools with solid mission-specific outcomes, and mid-

range 4-star schools with strong mission-specific outcomes to receive an honor designation. Schools that fall into this point-percentage category but have poor

operational and/or financial outcomes will not be eligible for an honor designation.

Good Standing:

Schools achieving at this level will be recommended for renewal; however, conditional renewal may be recommended if operational and/or financial outcomes

are poor. Replication and expansion proposals will be considered. To be placed in this category, schools much receive the appropriate percentage of the combined

academic and mission-specific points possible and have at least a 3-star rating. The Framework places schools that earn 55-74% of the combined academic and

mission-specific points possible in this accountability designation. It is possible for 3-star or 4-star schools with solid mission-specific outcomes, or 5-star schools

with poor mission-specific, financial, and/or operational outcomes to receive a good standing designation. Although 2-star schools with strong mission-specific

outcomes could fall into this point-percentage range, they would not be eligible to receive a good standing designation due to their star ratings; the Framework is

drafted thus in recognition of Idaho’s statutory provision that the performance framework shall, at a minimum, require that each school meet applicable federal

and state goals for student achievement.

Accountability Designations

Calculation of the percentage of eligible points earned for each school will guide the determination of that school’s accountability designation: Honor, Good Standing,

Remediation, or Critical. The accountability designation will, in turn, guide the PCSC’s renewal or non-renewal decision-making. Measures for which a school lacks data due

to factors such as grade configuration or small size will not contribute to that school’s accountability designation. The PCSC will consider contextual factors affecting a

school’s accountability designation when making renewal or non-renewal decisions.


SMS --- PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK SCORING

ACADEMIC MeasurePossible Elem /

MS Points% of Total Points POINTS EARNED Possible HS Points % of Total Points POINTS EARNED

State/Federal Accountability 1a 25 0% 0.00

1b 25 0% 0.00

Proficiency 2a 75 0% 0.00

2b 75 30%

2c 75 30%

Growth 3a 100 0% 0.00

3b 100 0% 0.00

3c 100 0% 0.00

3d 75 0% 0.00

3e 75 0% 0.00

3f 75 0% 0.00

3g 100 0% 0.00

College & Career Readiness 4a

4b1 / 4b2

4c

Total Possible Academic Points 900 60%

- Points from Non-Applicable 750

Total Possible Academic Points for This School 150

Total Academic Points Received 23.85

% of Possible Academic Points for This School 15.90%

MISSION-SPECIFIC Measure Possible Points % of Total Points POINTS EARNED Possible Points % of Total Points POINTS EARNED

Teacher Effectiveness 1 25 10% 0.00

Upper Elementary Student Engagement 2 25 10% 0.00

Early Elementary Student Happiness 3 25 10% 0.00

Learning Environment Supportiveness 4 25 10% 0.00

Total Possible Mission-Specific Points 100 40%

Total Mission-Specific Points Received 0.00

% of Possible Mission-Specific Points Received 0.00%

TOTAL POSSIBLE ACADEMIC & MISSION-SPECIFIC POINTS 250

TOTAL POINTS RECEIVED 23.85

% OF POSSIBLE ACADEMIC & MISSION-SPECIFIC POINTS 9.54%

OPERATIONAL Measure Points Possible % of Total Points Points Earned

Educational Program 1a 25 6% 25.00

1b 25 6% 15.00

1c 25 6% 25.00

1d 25 6% 15.00

Financial Management & Oversight 2a 25 6% 15.00

2b 25 6% 25.00

Governance & Reporting 3a 25 6% 25.00

3b 25 6% 25.00

Students & Employees 4a 25 6% 25.00

4b 25 6% 25.00

4c 25 6% 25.00

4d 25 6% 25.00

School Environment 5a 25 6% 25.00

5b 25 6% 25.00

5c 25 6% 25.00

Additional Obligations 6a 25 6% 0.00

TOTAL OPERATIONAL POINTS 400 100% 345.00

% OF POSSIBLE OPERATIONAL POINTS 86.25%

FINANCIAL Measure Points Possible % of Total Points Points Earned

Near-Term Measures 1a 50 13% 50.00

1b 50 13% 50.00

1c 50 13% 30.00 The financial measures included here are based on industry standards. They

1d 50 13% 50.00 are not intended to reflect the nuances of a school's financial status. A low

Sustainability Measures 2a 50 13% 10.00 score on any single measure indicates only the possibility of a problem. In

2b 50 13% 50.00 many cases, contextual information that alleviates concern is provided in the

2c 50 13% 50.00 notes that accompany individual measures. Please see the financial section of

2d 50 13% 0.00 this framework for additional detail.

TOTAL FINANCIAL POINTS 400 100% 290.00

% OF POSSIBLE FINANCIAL POINTS 72.50%



Range% of Points

Possible EarnedRange

% of Points


% of Points

Possible Earned

Honor

Schools achieving at this level in all categories are

eligible for special recognition and will be

recommended for renewal. Replication and

expansion proposals are likely to succeed.

75% - 100%

of points possible

90% - 100%

of points possible

85% - 100%

of points possible

Good Standing

Schools achieving at this level in Academic &

Mission-Specific will be recommended for

renewal; however, conditional renewal may be

recommended if Operational and/or Financial

outcomes are poor. Replication and expansion

proposals will be considered. To be placed in this

category for Academic & Mission-Specific,

schools must receive the appropriate percentage

of points and have at least a Three Star Rating.

55% - 74%

of points possible

80% - 89%

of points possible86.25%

65% - 84%


Remediation


Mission-Specific may be recommended for non-

renewal or conditional renewal, particularly if

Operational and/or Financial outcomes are also

poor. Replication and expansion proposals are

unlikely to succeed.

31% - 54%

of points possible

61% - 79%

of points possible

46% - 64%

of points possible

Critical


Mission-Specific level face a strong likelihood of

non-renewal, particularly if Operational and/or

Financial outcomes are also poor. Replication

and expansion proposals should not be

considered.

0% - 30%


0% - 60%

of points possible

0% - 45%

of points possible

Academic & Mission-Specific Operational FinancialACCOUNTABILITY DESIGNATION


SMS --- ACADEMIC FRAMEWORK

INDICATOR 1: STATE AND FEDERAL ACCOUNTABILITY

Result (Stars) Points Possible Points Earned

Measure 1a Is the school meeting acceptable standards according to existing state grading or rating systems?

Overall Star Rating 5 25

Exceeds Standard: School received five stars on the Star Rating System 4 20

Meets Standard: School received three or four stars on the Star Rating System 3 15

Does Not Meet Standard: School received two stars on the Star Rating System 2 0

Falls Far Below Standard: School received one star on the Star Rating System 1 0

0

Notes

Measure 1b Is the school meeting state designation expectations as set forth by state and federal accountability systems?Result Points Possible Points Earned

State Designations

Exceeds Standard: School was identified as a "Reward" school. Reward 25

Meets Standard: School does not have a designation. None 15

Does Not Meet Standard: School was identified as a "Focus" school. Focus 0

Falls Far Below Standard: School was identified as a "Priority" school. Priority 0

0

Notes

INDICATOR 2: STUDENT ACADEMIC PROFICIENCY

Measure 2a Are students achieving reading proficiency on state examinations?

Result (Percentage)

Points Possible Possible in this

RangePercentile Targets Percentile Points Points Earned

ISAT / SBA % Proficiency

Reading Exceeds Standard: 90% or more of students met or exceeded proficiency. 57-75 19 90-100 11 0

Meets Standard: Between 65-89% of students met or exceeded proficiency. 38-56 19 65-89 25 0

Does Not Meet Standard: Between 41-64% of students met or exceeded proficiency. 20-37 18 41-64 24 0

Falls Far Below Standard: Fewer than 41% of students met or exceeded proficiency. 0-19 19 1-40 40 0

0

Notes

Measure 2b Are students achieving math proficiency on state examinations?Result

(Percentage)Points Possible

Possible in this



Math Exceeds Standard: 90% or more of students met or exceeded proficiency. 57-75 19 90-100 11 0



Falls Far Below Standard: Fewer than 41% of students met or exceeded proficiency. 0-19 19 1-40 40

Notes



Measure 2c Are students achieving language proficiency on state examinations?Result


Possible in this



Language Arts Exceeds Standard: 90% or more of students met or exceeded proficiency. 57-75 19 90-100 11 0



Falls Far Below Standard: Fewer than 41% of students met or exceeded proficiency. 0-19 19 1-40 40

Notes

INDICATOR 3: STUDENT ACADEMIC GROWTH

Measure 3a

Are students making adequate annual academic growth to achieve proficiency in reading with 3 years or by

10th grade?

Result (Percentage)



Criterion-Referenced

Growth in Reading Exceeds Standard: At least 85% of students are making adequate academic growth. 76-100 25 85-100 16 0

Meets Standard: Between 70-84% of students are making adequate academic growth. 51-75 25 70-84 15 0

Does Not Meet Standard: Between 50-69% of students are making adequate academic growth. 26-50 25 50-69 20 0

Falls Far Below Standard: Fewer than 50% of students are making adequate academic growth. 0-25 25 1-49 49 0

0

Notes

Measure 3b

Are students making adequate annual academic growth to achieve math proficiency within 3 years or by 10th

grade?

Result (Percentage)

Points Possible Points possible in

this RangePercentile Targets Percentile Points Points Earned


Growth in Math Exceeds Standard: At least 85% of students are making adequate academic growth. 76-100 25 85-100 16 0




0

Notes

Measure 3c

Are students making adequate annual academic growth to achieve language proficiency within 3 years or by

10th grade?

Result (Percentage)




Growth in Language Exceeds Standard: At least 85% of students are making adequate academic growth. 76-100 25 85-100 16 0




0

Notes



Measure 3d Are students making expected annual academic growth in reading compared to their academic peers?Result (Percentile) Points Possible

Possible in this


Norm-Referenced

Growth in Reading Exceeds Standard: The school's Median SGP in reading falls between the 66th and 99th percentile. 57-75 19 66-99 34 0

Meets Standard: The school's Median SGP in reading falls between the 43rd and and 65th percentile. 38-56 19 43-65 23 0

Does Not Meet Standard: The school's Median SGP in reading falls between the 30th and 42th percentile. 20-37 18 30-42 13 0

Falls Far Below Standard: The school's Median SGP in reading falls below the 30th percentile. 0-19 19 1-29 29 0

0

Notes

Measure 3e Are students making expected annual academic growth in math compared to their academic peers?Result (Percentile) Points Possible

Possible in this


Norm-Referenced

Growth in Math Exceeds Standard: The school's Median SGP in math falls between the 66th and 99th percentile. 57-75 19 66-99 34 0

Meets Standard: The school's Median SGP in math falls between the 43rd and and 65th percentile. 38-56 19 43-65 23 0

Does Not Meet Standard: The school's Median SGP in math falls between the 30th and 42th percentile. 20-37 18 30-42 13 0

Falls Far Below Standard: The school's Median SGP in math falls below the 30th percentile. 0-19 19 1-29 29 0

0

Notes

Measure 3f Are students making expected annual academic growth in language compared to their academic peers?Result (Percentile) Points Possible

Possible in this


Norm-Referenced

Growth in Language Exceeds Standard: The school's Median SGP in language arts falls between the 66th and 99th percentile. 57-75 19 66-99 34 0

Meets Standard: The school's Median SGP in language arts falls between the 43rd and and 65th percentile. 38-56 19 43-65 23 0

Does Not Meet Standard: The school's Median SGP in language arts falls between the 30th and 42th percentile. 20-37 18 30-42 13 0

Falls Far Below Standard: The school's Median SGP in language arts falls below the 30th percentile. 0-19 19 1-29 29 0

0

Notes

Measure 3g Is the school increasing subgroup academic performance over time?Result


Possible in this


Subgroup Growth

Combined Subjects Exceeds Standard: School earned at least 70% of possible points in SRS Accountability Area 3. 76-100 25 70-100 31 0

Meets Standard: School earned 45-69% of possible points in SRS Accountability Area 3. 51-75 25 45-69 25 0

Does Not Meet Standard: School earned 30-44% of possible points in SRS Accountability Area 3. 26-50 25 30-44 15 0

Falls Far Below Standard: School earned fewer than 30% of possible points in SRS Accountability Area 3. 0-25 25 1-29 29 0

0

Notes



INDICATOR 4: COLLEGE AND CAREER READINESS

Measure 4a Are students participating successfully in advance opportunity coursework? Result Points Possible Points Earned

Advanced Opportunity

Coursework Exceeds Standard: School earned 5 points in SRS Post-Secondary Content Area: Advanced Opportunity 5 50

Meets Standard: School earned 3-4 points in SRS Post-Secondary Content Area: Advanced Opportunity 3-4 30

Does Not Meet Standard: School earned 2 points in SRS Post-Secondary Content Area: Advanced Opportunity 2 10

Falls Far Below Standard: School earned 1 or fewer points in SRS Post-Secondary Content Area: Adv Oppty 1 0

Notes 0

Measure 4b1 Does students' performance on college entrance exams reflect college readiness? Result Points PossiblePoints Earned

College Entrance

Exam Results Exceeds Standard: Effective in 2013-14, at least 35% of students met or exceeded the college readiness

benchmark on an entrance or placement exam. 5 50

Meets Standard: Effective in 2013-14, between 25-34% of students met or exceeded the college readiness

benchmark on an entrance or placement exam.) 3-4 30

Does Not Meet Standard: Effective in 2013-14, between 20-24% of students met or exceeded the college

readiness benchmark on an entrance or placement exam.) 2 10

Falls Far Below Standard: Effective in 2013-14, fewer than 20% of students met or exceeded the college

readiness benchmark on an entrance or placement exam. 1 0

0

Notes

Measure 4b2 Does students' performance on college entrance exams reflect college readiness? Result Points Possible Points Earned

College Entrance

Exam Results Exceeds Standard: Effective in 2014-15 and thereafter, at least 45% of students met or exceeded the college


Meets Standard: Effective in 2014-15 and thereafter, between 35-44% of students met or exceeded the college

readiness benchmark on an entrance or placement exam. 3-4 30

Does Not Meet Standard: Effective in 2014-15 and thereafter, between 30-34% of students met or exceeded the

college readiness benchmark on an entrance or placement exam. 2 10

Falls Far Below Standard: Effective in 2014-15 and thereafter, fewer than 30% of students met or exceeded the


0

Notes

Measure 4c Are students graduating from high school?Result

(Percentage)Possible Overall

Possible in this


Graduation Rate

Exceeds Standard: At least 90% of students graduated from high school. 39-50 12 90-100 11 0

Meets Standard: 81-89% of students graduated from high school. 26-38 13 81-89 9 0

Does Not Meet Standard: 71%-80% of students graduated from high school. 14-25 12 71-80 10 0

Falls Far Below Standard: Fewer than 70% of students graduated from high school. 0-13 13 1-70 70 0

Notes 0


SMS --- MISSION-SPECIFIC FRAMEWORK

MISSION-SPECIFIC GOALS

Measure 1 Are the school's teachers effective?Result

Points

PossiblePoints Earned

Exceeds Standard: 80% to 100% of students gave favorable responses on the Tripod survey regarding their teachers' effectiveness in

implementing the 7Cs of Effective Teaching. 150

Meets Standard: 55% to 79% of students gave favorable responses on the Tripod survey regarding their teachers' effectiveness in


Does Not Meet Standard: 40% to 54% of students gave favorable responses on the Tripod survey regarding their teachers'

effectiveness in implementing the 7Cs of Effective Teaching. 65

Falls Far Below Standard: Less than 40% of students gave favorable responses on the Tripod survey regarding their teachers'

effectiveness in implementing the 7Cs of Effective Teaching. 0 0 0

0.00

Notes The Tripod Project® has been working with schools, districts, and states for a decade researching how students experience teaching and

learning in the classroom. Since 2009 Cambridge Education and the Tripod Project have been involved in the Measures of Effective

Teaching (MET) Project, a large scale research project supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, developing and vetting

student perception surveys. Of significance, the MET Project found that there was a valid link between student achievement and

student survey results, and that survey results are a stable, reliable measure. "Favorable responses" on the survey are responses of 4 or

5 on the 5-point scale.

Due to the large expense associated with administration of the survey, SMS will not administer the survey or report results to the PCSC

annually. At a minimum, the survey will be administered in the year preceding a renewal decision. Results will be reported by the

school to the PCSC by October 1 of that same year. Due to budget concerns, the MET was not administered. Thus no scores are

available.

Measure 2 Is the school engaging its upper elementary students in learning?Result

Points


Exceeds Standard: 80% to 100% of 3rd - 5th grade students demonstrated engagement in learning based on favorable responses on the

Student Engagement questions in the Tripod survey.150

Meets Standard: 55% to 79% of 3rd - 5th grade students demonstrated engagement in learning based on favorable responses on the


Does Not Meet Standard: 40% to 54% of 3rd - 5th grade students demonstrated engagement in learning based on favorable responses

on the Student Engagement questions in the Tripod survey.65

Falls Far Below Standard: Less than 40% of 3rd - 5th grade students demonstrated engagement in learning based on favorable

responses on the Student Engagement questions in the Tripod survey.0 0 0

0.00

Notes Results will be reported by the school to the PCSC by October 1 of each year. Due to budget concerns, the MET was not administered.

Thus no scores are available.



Measure 3 Is the school helping early elementary students to feel happy about their school experience?Result

Points


Exceeds Standard: 80% to 100% of 1-2nd grade students demonstrated happiness with their school experience at SMS based on their

responses on the Happiness questions in the Tripod survey.150

Meets Standard: 55% to 79% of 1-2nd grade students demonstrated happiness with their school experience at SMS based on their


Does Not Meet Standard: 40% to 54% of 1-2nd grade students demonstrated happiness with their school experience at SMS based on

their responses on the Happiness questions in the Tripod survey.65

Falls Far Below Standard: Less than 40% of 1-2nd grade students demonstrated happiness with their school experience at SMS based on

their responses on the Happiness questions in the Tripod survey.0 0 0

0.00

Notes Due to the large expense associated with administration of the survey, SMS will not administer the survey or report results to the PCSC



available.

Measure 4 Does the school climate reflect a positive and supportive learning environment?Result

Points


Exceeds Standard: 80% to 100% of 3rd-5th grade students felt that the school's learning environment was positive and supportive

based on their responses on the School Climate section of the Tripod survey.150

Meets Standard: 55% to 79% of 3rd-5th grade students felt that the school's learning environment was positive and supportive based

on their responses on the School Climate section of the Tripod survey.125

Does Not Meet Standard: 40% to 54% of 3rd-5th grade students felt that the school's learning environment was positive and

supportive based on their responses on the School Climate section of the Tripod survey.60

Falls Far Below Standard: Less than 40% of 3rd-5th grade students felt that the school's learning environment was positive and

supportive based on their responses on the School Climate section of the Tripod survey.0 0 0

0.00




available.


SMS --- OPERATIONAL FRAMEWORK

INDICATOR 1: EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM25

Measure 1a Is the school implementing the material terms of the educational program as defined in the performance certificate?Result

Points

Possible Points Earned

Implementation of

Educational Program Meets Standard: The school implements the material terms of the mission, vision, and educational program in all material respects

and the implementation of the educational program reflects the essential elements outlined in the performance certificate, or the

school has gained approval for a charter modification to the material terms.

No instances

of non-

compliance

documented

25 25.00

Does Not Meet Standard: School has deviated from the material terms of the mission, vision, and essential elements of the

educational program as described in the performance certificate, without approval for a charter modification, such that the program

provided differs substantially from the program described in the charter and performance certificate.

0

25.00

Notes

Measure 1b Is the school complying with applicable education requirements?Result

Points


Education Requirements

Exceeds Standard: The school materially complies with applicable laws, rules, regulations, and provisions of the performance

certificate relating to education requirements, including but not limited to: Instructional time requirements, graduation and

promotion requirements, content standards including the Common Core State Standards, the Idaho State Standards, State

assessments, and implementation of mandated programming related to state or federal funding.

25

Meets Standard: The school has exhibited non-compliance with applicable laws, rules, regulations, or provisions of the performance

certificate relating to the education requirements; however, matters of non-compliance are minor and quickly remedied, with

documentation, by the governing board.See note 15 15.00

Does Not Meet Standard: The school exhibits frequent and/or significant non-compliance with applicable laws, rules, regulations,

and provisions of the performance certificate relating to education requirements; and/or matters of non-compliance are not quickly

remedied, with documentation, by the governing board.

0

15.00

Notes As noted in an April 2015 Due Diligence Report conducted by Blaine County School District staff, and the school's response to this

report, the school is still working toward full alignment of its curriculum with current Idaho State and Common Core Standards.

Measure 1c Is the school protecting the rights of students with disabilities?Result

Points


Students with Disabilities


certificate relating to the treatment of students with identified disabilities and those suspected of having a disability, including but

not limited to: Equitable access and opportunity to enroll; identification and referral; appropriate development and implementation

of IEPs and Section 504 plans; operational compliance, including provision of services in the LRE and appropriate inclusion in the

school's academic program, assessments, and extracurricular activities; discipline, including due process protections, manifestation

determinations, and behavioral intervention plans; access to the school's facility and program; appropriate use of all available,

applicable funding.

No instances

of non-

compliance

documented

25 25.00

Meets Standard: The school largely exhibits compliance with applicable laws, rules, regulations, or provisions of the performance

certificate relating to the treatment of students with identified disabilities and those suspected of having a disability. Instances of

non-compliance are minor and quickly remedied, with documentation, by the governing board.15


and provisions of the performance certificate relating to the treatment of students with identified disabilities and those suspected of

having a disability; and/or matters of non-compliance are not quickly remedied, with documentation, by the governing board.0

25.00

Notes



Measure 1d Is the school protecting the rights of English Language Learner (ELL) students?Result

Points


English Language Learners


certificate relating to requirements regarding ELLs, including but not limited to: Equitable access and opportunity to enroll; required

policies related to the service of ELL students; compliance with native language communication requirements; proper steps for

identification of students in need of ELL services; appropriate and equitable delivery of services to identified students; appropriate

accommodations on assessments; exiting of students from ELL services; and ongoing monitoring of exited students. Matters of non-

compliance, if any, are minor and quickly remedied, with documentation, by the governing board.

25


certificate relating to the treatment of ELL students; however, matters of non-compliance are minor and quickly remedied, with



and provisions of the performance certificate relating to requirements regarding ELLs; and/or matters of non-compliance are not

quickly remedied, with documentation, by the governing board.

0

15.00

Notes As noted in an April 2015 Due Diligence Report conducted by Blaine County School District staff, evidence of support provided to the

school's few ELL students is not available, though identification activity is documented.

INDICATOR 2: FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT

Measure 2a Is the school meeting financial reporting and compliance requirements?Result

Points


Financial Reporting

and Compliance Exceeds Standard: The school materially complies with applicable laws, rules, regulations, and provisions of the performance

certificate relating to financial reporting requirements, including but not limited to: Complete and on-time submission of financial

reports including annual budget, revised budgets (if applicable), periodic financial reports as required by the PCSC, and any reporting

requirements if the board contracts with and Education Service Provider; on-time submission and completion of the annual

independent audit and corrective action plans (if applicable); and all reporting requirements related to the use of public funds.

25


certificate relating to financial reporting requirements. Instances of non-compliance are minor and quickly remedied, with


Does Not Meet Standard: The school exhibits frequent and/or significant failure to comply with applicable laws, rules, regulations,

and provisions of the performance certificate relating to financial reporting requirements; and/or matters of non-compliance are not


0

15.00

Notes The school has partially maintained an expenditures website as required by §33-357, Idaho Code; however, it has not consistently

been kept current (within 45 days).

Measure 2b Is the school following Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP)?Result

Points


GAAP

Meets Standard: The school materially complies with applicable laws, rules, regulations, and provisions of the performance

certificate relating to financial management and oversight expectations as evidenced by an annual independent audit, including but

not limited to: An unqualified audit opinion; an audit devoid of significant findings and conditions, material weaknesses, or significant

internal control weaknesses; and an audit that does not include a going concern disclosure in the notes or an explanatory paragraph

within the audit report.

No instances

of non-

compliance

documented

25 25.00

Does Not Meet Standard: The school exhibits failure to comply with applicable laws, rules, regulations, and provisions of the

performance certificate relating to financial management and oversight expectations as evidenced by an annual independent audits;

and/or matters of non-compliance are not quickly remedied, with documentation, by the governing board.0

25.00

Notes



GOVERNANCE AND REPORTING

Measure 3a Is the school complying with governance requirements?Result

Points


Governance Requirements


certificate relating to governance by its board, including but not limited to: board policies; board bylaws; state open meetings law;

code of ethics; conflicts of interest; board composition; and compensation for attendance at meetings.

No instances

of non-

compliance

documented

25 25.00


certificate relating to governance by its board. Instances of non-compliance are minor and quickly remedied, with documentation, by

the governing board.15

Does Not Meet Standard: The school exhibits frequent and/or significant failure to materially comply with applicable laws, rules,

regulations, and provisions of the performance certificate relating to governance by its board; and/or matters of non-compliance are

not quickly remedied, with documentation, by the governing board.

0

25.00

Notes

Measure 3b Is the school complying with reporting requirements?Result

Points


Reporting Requirements

Exceeds Standard: The school materially complies with applicable laws, rules, regulations, and requirements of the performance

certificate relating to relevant reporting requirements to the PCSC, the SDE, and/or federal authorities, including but not limited to:

accountability tracking; attendance and enrollment reporting; compliance and oversight; additional information requested by the

authorizer.

No instances

of non-

compliance

documented

25 25.00


certificate relating to relevant reporting requirements to the PCSC, the SDE, and/or federal authorities. Instances of non-compliance

are minor and quickly remedied, with documentation, by the governing board.

15


regulations, and provisions of the performance certificate relating to relevant reporting requirements to the PCSC, the SDE, and/or

federal authorities; and/or matters of non-compliance are not quickly remedied, with documentation, by the governing board.

0

25.00

Notes

INDICATOR 4: STUDENTS AND EMPLOYEES

Measure 4a Is the school protecting the rights of all students?Result

Points


Student Rights


certificate relating to the rights of students, including but not limited to: policies and practices related to recruitment and

enrollment; the collection and protection of student information; due process protections, privacy, civil rights, and student liberties

requirements; conduct of discipline.

No instances

of non-

compliance

documented

25 25.00


certificate relating to the rights of students. Instances of non-compliance are minor and quickly remedied, with documentation, by



regulations, and provisions of the performance certificate relating to the rights of students; and/or matters of non-compliance are


0

25.00

Notes



Measure 4b Is the school meeting teacher and other staff credentialing requirements?Result

Points


Credentialing


certificate relating to state and federal certification requirements.

No instances

of non-

compliance

documented

25 25.00

Meets Standard: The school largely exhibits compliance with applicable laws, rules, regulations, or requirements of the performance

certificate relating to state and federal certification requirements. Instances of non-compliance are minor and quickly remedied,

with documentation, by the governing board.15


regulations, and provisions of the performance certificate relating to state and federal certification requirements; and/or matters of

non-compliance are not quickly remedied, with documentation, by the governing board.

0

25.00

Notes

Measure 4c Is the school complying with laws regarding employee rights?Result

Points


Employee Rights


certificate relating to employment considerations, including those relating to the Family Medical Leave Act, the Americans with

Disabilities Act, and employment contracts.

No instances

of non-

compliance

documented

25 25.00


certificate relating to employment considerations or employee rights. Instances of non-compliance are minor and quickly remedied,



regulations, and provisions of the performance certificate relating to employment considerations; and/or matters of non-compliance

are not quickly remedied, with documentation, by the governing board.0

25.00

Notes

Measure 4d Is the school completing required background checks?Result

Points


Background Checks


certificate relating to background checks of all applicable individuals.

No instances

of non-

compliance

documented

25 25.00


certificate relating to background checks of all applicable individuals. Instances of non-compliance are minor and quickly remedied,



regulations, and provisions of the performance certificate relating to background checks of all applicable individuals; and/or matters

of non-compliance are not quickly remedied, with documentation, by the governing board.0

25.00

Notes



INDICATOR 5: SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT

Measure 5a Is the school complying with facilities and transportation requirements?Result

Points


Facilities and Transportation


certificate relating to the school facilities, grounds, and transportation, including but not limited to: American's with Disabilities Act,

fire inspections and related records, viable certificate of occupancy or other required building use authorization, documentation of

requisite insurance coverage, and student transportation.

See note 25 25.00


certificate relating to the school facilities, grounds, or transportation. Instances of non-compliance are minor and quickly remedied,



regulations, and provisions of the performance certificate relating to the school facilities, grounds, and transportation; and/or

matters of non-compliance are not quickly remedied, with documentation, by the governing board.0

25.00

Notes While SMS does not provide transportation on school buses, they do provide all students with bus passes. Students are not required

to pay for the passes, though most students who are financially able choose to pay for the service.

Measure 5b Is the school complying with health and safety requirements?Result

Points


Health and Safety


certificate relating to safety and the provision of health-related services.

No instances

of non-

compliance

documented

25 25.00


certificate relating to safety or the provision of health-related services. Instances of non-compliance are minor and quickly remedied,



regulations, and provisions of the performance certificate relating to safety and the provision of health-related services; and/or


25.00

Notes

Measure 5c Is the school handling information appropriately?Result

Points


Information Handling


certificate relating to the handling of information, including but not limited to: maintaining the security of and providing access to

student records under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act and other applicable authorities; accessing documents

maintained by the school under the state's Freedom of Information law and other applicable authorities; Transferring of student

records; proper and secure maintenance of testing materials.

No instances

of non-

compliance

documented25 25.00


certificate relating to the handling of information. Instances of non-compliance are minor and quickly remedied, with

documentation, by the governing board.15


regulations, and provisions of the performance certificate relating to the handling of information; and/or matters of non-compliance


25.00

Notes



ADDITIONAL OBLIGATIONS

Measure 6a Is the school complying with all other obligations?Result

Points


Additional Obligations

Meets Standard: The school materially complies with all other material legal, statutory, regulatory, or contractual requirements

contained in its charter contract that are not otherwise explicitly stated herein, including but not limited to requirements from the

following sources: revisions to state charter law; and requirements of the State Department of Education. Matters of non-


25

Does Not Meet Standard: The school exhibits frequent and/or significant failure to materially comply with with all other material

legal, statutory, regulatory, or contractual requirements contained in its charter contract that are not otherwise explicitly stated

herein; and/or matters of non-compliance are not quickly remedied, with documentation, by the governing board.See note 0 0.00

0.00

NotesThe school's 2014-15 annual performance report was not published on the school's website in accordance with §33-5209C, Idaho

Code; this matter had not been remedied as of July 1, 2016. The school has not posted an updated (since 2014) Continuous

Improvement Plan on its website as required by §33-320, Idaho Code; this matter had not been remedied as of July 1, 2016.


SMS --- FINANCIAL FRAMEWORK

INDICATOR 1: NEAR-TERM MEASURES

Measure 1a Current Ratio: Current Assets divided by Current LiabilitiesResult Points Possible

Points Earned

Current Ratio Current Ratio is:

Meets Standard: Current Ratio is greater than or equal to 1.1 OR Current Ratio is between 1.0 and 1.1 and one-year trend is positive (current

year ratio is higher than last year's). Note: For schools in their first or second year of operation, the current ratio must be greater than or equal

to 1.1.

1.15 50 50.00

Does Not Meet Standard: Current Ratio is between 0.9 and 1.0 or equals 1.0 OR Current Ratio is between 1.0 and 1.1 and one-year trend is

negative.10

Falls Far Below Standard: Current ratio is less than or equal to 0.9. 0 0.00

50.00

Notes

Measure 1b Unrestricted Days Cash: Unrestricted Cash divided by (Total Expenses minus Depreciation Expense / 365)Result Points Possible

Points Earned

Unrestricted Days Cash No. of Days Cash:

Meets Standard: 60 Days Cash OR Between 30 and 60 Days Cash and one-year trend is positive. Note: Schools in their first or second year of

operation must have a minimum of 30 Days Cash.39 50 50.00

Does Note Meet Standard: Days Cash is between 15-30 days OR Days Cash is between 30-60 days and one-year trend is negative. 10

Falls Far Below Standard: Fewer than 15 Days Cash. 0 0.00

50.00

Notes Unrestricted days cash improved from 1 day in FY15 to 39 days in FY16.

Measure 1c Enrollment Variance: Actual Enrollment divided by Enrollment Projection in Charter School Board-Approved BudgetResult Points Possible

Points Earned

Enrollment Variance Variance is:

Meets Standard: Enrollment Variance equals or exceeds 95 percent in the most recent year. 50

Does Not Meet Standard: Enrollment Variance is between 85-95 percent in the most recent year. 93.46% 30 30.00

Falls Far Below Standard: Enrollment Variance is less than 85 percent in the most recent year. 0

30.00

Notes

Measure 1d DefaultResult Points Possible

Points Earned

Default

Meets Standard: School is not in default of loan covenant(s) and/or is not delinquent with debt service payments. No default or

delinquency

noted in audit

50 50.00

Does Not Meet Standard: Not applicable

Falls Far Below Standard: School is in default of loan covenant(s) and/or is delinquent with debt service payments. 0

50.00

Notes



INDICATOR 2: SUSTAINABILITY MEASURES 0

Measure 2a

Total Margin: Net Income divided by Total Revenue AND Aggregated Total Margin: Total 3-Year Net Income divided by Total 3-Year

RevenuesResult Points Possible

Points Earned

Total Margin and AggregatedAggregated 3-

Year Totals:

3-Year Total Margin Meets Standard: Aggregated 3-year Total Margin is positive and the most recent year Total Margin is positive OR Aggregated 3-Year Total

Margin is greater than -1.5 percent, the trend is positive for the last two years, and the most recent year Total Margin is positive. Note: For

schools in their first or second year of operation, the cumulative Total Margin must be positive.

50

Does Not Meet Standard: Aggregated 3-Year Total Margin is greater than -1.5 percent, but trend does not "Meet Standard" 0 10 10.00

Falls Far Below Standard: Aggregated 3-Year Total Margin is less than or equal to -1.5 percent OR The most recent year Total Margin is less

than -10 percent.0

10.00

Notes

Previous year total margin was negative, therefore the standard is not met. Due to the Restatement of Pension Liability, as required by GASB

68, Net Position may be higher than expected. Changes in Net Position due to pension restatement that do not provide or require current

financial resources have been removed from the Net Position calculation. This restatement had no material effect on the standard outcome.

Measure 2b Debt to Asset Ratio: Total Liabilities divided by Total AssetsResult Points Possible

Points Earned

Debt to Asset Ratio Ratio is:

Meets Standard: Debt to Asset Ratio is less than 0.9 0.16 50 50.00

Does Not Meet Standard: Debt to Asset Ratio is between 0.9 and 1.0 30

Falls Far Below Standard: Debt to Asset Ratio is greater than 1.0 0

50.00

Notes Due to the Restatement of Pension Liability, as required by GASB 68, Total Liabilities may be higher than expected. The pension liability was

removed from the Total Liability calculation in the reported standard outcome. This restatement had no material effect on the standard

outcome.

Measure 2c Cash Flow: Multi-Year Cash Flow = Year 3 Total Cash - Year 1 Total Cash AND One-Year Cash Flow = Year 2 Total Cash - Year 1 Total CashResult Points Possible

Points Earned

Cash FlowMulti-Year

Cumulative is:

Meets Standard (in one of two ways): Multi-Year Cumulative Cash Flow is positive and Cash Flow is positive each year OR Multi-Year

Cumulative Cash Flow is positive, Cash Flow is positive in one of two years, and Cash Flow in the most recent year is positive. Note: Schools in

their first or second year of operation must have positive cash flow.

$118,786 50 50.00

Does Not Meet Standard: Multi-Year Cumulative Cash Flow is positive, but trend does not "Meet Standard" 30

Falls Far Below Standard: Multi-Year Cumulative Cash Flow is negative 0

50.00

Notes

Measure 2d Debt Service Coverage Ratio: (Net Income + Depreciation + Interest Expense)/(Annual Principal, Interest, and Lease Payments)Result Points Possible

Points Earned

Debt Service Coverage Ratio Ratio is:

Meets Standard: Debt Service Coverage Ratio is equal to or exceeds 1.1 50

Does Not Meet Standard: Debt Service Coverage Ratio is less than 1.1 0.56 0 0.00

Falls Far Below Standard: Not Applicable

0.00

Notes Due to the Restatement of Pension Liability, as required by GASB 68, Net Position may be higher than expected. Changes in Net Position due to

pension restatement that do not provide or require current financial resources have been removed from the Net Position calculation. This

restatement had no material effect on the standard outcome.


SMS --- LONGITUDINAL RESULTS

ACADEMIC MeasurePossible

Points

2013-14 POINTS

EARNED*

2014-15 POINTS

EARNED

2015-16 POINTS

EARNED

2016-17 POINTS

EARNED

2017-18 POINTS

EARNED

State/Federal Accountability 1a 25 N/A 0.00 0.00

1b 25 N/A 15.00 0.00

Proficiency 2a 75 N/A 0.00 0.00

2b 75 N/A 12.54

2c 75 N/A 14.35

Growth 3a 100 N/A 0.00 0.00

3b 100 N/A 0.00 0.00

3c 100 N/A 0.00 0.00

3d 75 N/A 0.00 0.00

3e 75 N/A 0.00 0.00

3f 75 N/A 0.00 0.00

3g 100 N/A 0.00 0.00


4b1 / 4b2

4c

Total Possible Academic Points Received 900 0.00 41.89 23.85 0.00 0.00

% of Possible Academic Points for This School N/A 23.93% 15.90% 0.00% 0.00%

*2013-14 Academic results are based on 2012-13 ISAT. Subsequent outcomes are based on the ISAT by SBAC and should not be directly compared to 2013-14 data.

MISSION-SPECIFIC MeasurePossible

Points

2013-14 POINTS

EARNED

2014-15 POINTS

EARNED

2015-16 POINTS

EARNED

2016-17 POINTS

EARNED

2017-18 POINTS

EARNED

Teacher Effectiveness 1 150 N/A N/A 0

Upper Elementary Student Engagement 2 150 N/A N/A 0

Early Elementary Student Happiness 3 150 N/A N/A 0

Learning Environment Supportiveness 4 150 N/A N/A 0

Total Possible Mission-Specific Points Received 600 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

% of Possible Mission-Specific Points for This School N/A 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

OPERATIONAL MeasurePossible

Points

2013-14 POINTS

EARNED

2014-15 POINTS

EARNED

2015-16 POINTS

EARNED

2016-17 POINTS

EARNED

2017-18 POINTS

EARNED

Educational Program 1a 25 N/A 25 25

1b 25 N/A 15 15

1c 25 N/A 25 25

1d 25 N/A 25 15

Financial Management & Oversight 2a 25 N/A 0 15

2b 25 N/A 25 25

Governance & Reporting 3a 25 N/A 25 25

3b 25 N/A 15 25

Students & Employees 4a 25 N/A 25 25

4b 25 N/A 25 25

4c 25 N/A 25 25

4d 25 N/A 25 25

School Environment 5a 25 N/A 25 25

5b 25 N/A 25 25

5c 25 N/A 25 25

Additional Obligations 6a 25 N/A 25 0

Total Possible Operational Points Received 400 0.00 355.00 345.00 0.00 0.00

% of Possible Operational Points for This School 0.00% 88.75% 86.25% 0.00% 0.00%

FINANCIAL MeasurePossible

Points

2013-14 POINTS

EARNED

2014-15 POINTS

EARNED

2015-16 POINTS

EARNED

2016-17 POINTS

EARNED

2017-18 POINTS

EARNED

Near-Term Measures 1a 50 N/A 0 50

1b 50 N/A 0 50

1c 50 N/A 30 30

1d 50 N/A 50 50

Sustainability Measures 2a 50 N/A 0 10

2b 50 N/A 50 50

2c 50 N/A 50 50

2d 50 N/A 0 0

Total Possible Financial Points Received 400 0.00 180.00 290.00 0.00 0.00

% of Possible Financial Points for This School 0.00% 45.00% 72.50% 0.00% 0.00%

ACCOUNTABILITY DESIGNATION2013-14

DESIGNATION

2014-15

DESIGNATION

2015-16

DESIGNATION

2016-17

DESIGNATION

2017-18

DESIGNATION

Academic & Mission-Specific N/A Critical Critical

Operational N/A Good Standing Good Standing

Financial N/A Critical Good Standing


“Performance-based accountability is the cornerstone of charter schools.”

Alison Consoletti, The Center for Education Reform


Idaho Public Charter School Commission

304 North 8th Street, Room 242

Boise, Idaho 83702

Phone: (208) 332-1561

chartercommission.idaho.gov

Alan Reed, Chairman

Tamara Baysinger, Director

Distributed January 2016


ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT

2014-2015


Introduction

Each year, Idaho’s Public Charter School Commission (PCSC) issues a performance report to every

school in its portfolio. The annual report serves several purposes:

1. To provide transparent, data-driven information about charter school quality;

2. To ensure that charter school boards have access to clear expectations and are provided

maximum opportunity to correct any deficiencies prior to their renewal year; and

3. To inform mid-term decision making, such as the evaluation of charter amendment

proposals.

This report contains an overview of the school, including its history, mission, leadership, and

demographics. The overview is followed by the school’s performance framework, including

outcomes for the most recently completed school year.

The performance framework is comprised of four sections: Academic, Mission-Specific,

Operational, and Financial. Each section contains a number of measures intended to evaluate

the school’s performance against specific criteria. The scorecard pages of the framework offer a

summary of the school’s scores and accountability designation ranging from Honor (high) to

Critical (low).

Due to significant and ongoing changes to the state’s school accountability system, many of the

academic measures in the performance framework could not be scored this year. Data for all of

the growth measures and most of the post-secondary readiness measures was unavailable. As a

result, academic framework scores cannot reflect the intended scope of information.

Additionally, although ISAT Math and English Language Arts proficiency data was available, it was

gathered using an assessment that the state adopted subsequent to the framework’s

development. The cut scores used to establish proficiency remain under evaluation, and it cannot

be determined at this time whether or not the rating categories within each framework measure

are appropriate in the context of the new assessment.

For these reasons, we have eliminated academic framework scores from this report and instead

provided comparisons of the public charter schools’ proficiency rates to those of the state as a

whole, as well as to area schools that serve similar grade ranges. In some cases, comparisons

cannot be provided because the data is masked per state law or statistical irrelevance.

To facilitate a clearer context for the academic results contained in this report, the demographic,

enrollment, and school leadership data provided is from the 2014-15 school year. Updated

enrollment and school leadership information is available upon request from the school or PCSC

office.

Schools had an opportunity to correct or clarify their framework outcomes prior to the publication

of this report.

Public charter school operations are inherently complex. For this reason, readers are encouraged

to consider the scores on individual measures within the framework as a starting point for gaining

full, contextualized understanding of the school’s performance.

Additional information about how the performance framework was developed and how results

may be interpreted is available on the PCSC’s website: chartercommission.idaho.gov.


http://chartercommission.idaho.gov/

http://chartercommission.idaho.gov/

School Overview

Mission Statement

Syringa Mountain School offers Waldorf-inspired, liberal arts and arts-

integrated education, incorporating sustainable living practices and

experiential learning in a K-8 public school setting. Each child will

impart meaning and direction to their lives, through cultivating their

intellectual, physical, emotional, social and creative capacities in

natural learning environments. Through a supportive community of

peers, parents and teachers, each child will become a confident, self-

directed and engaged learner, invested in his/her own education.

Key Design

Elements

Use of a Waldorf-inspired program including:

Teacher looping such that cohorts of students move through multiple

grades together with the same classroom teacher;

Application of curriculum designed to be developmentally

appropriate and therapeutic for students;

Implementation of a schedule organized to include Main Lesson,

Practice Periods, and Specialty Subjects;

Balance of academic studies with artistic and social activities;

Alignment with the Idaho Common Core State Standards and Idaho

State Standards;

Fostering of strong parent involvement in the school, including

provision of parent educational opportunities; and

Creation of a safe learning environment through a positive but firm

disciplinary approach.

School Contact

Information Address: 4021 Glenbrook Drive

Hailey, ID 83333 Phone: (208) 806-2880

Surrounding District Blaine County

Opening Year 2014

Current Term October 10, 2013 – June 30, 2017

Grades Served K-8

Enrollment Approved: 520 Actual: 135


School Leadership (2014-2015) Role

Greg Bloomfield Chair

Phoebe Pilaro Vice Chair

Ben Rogers Treasurer

Paul Bates Member

Bobbi Filbert Member

Dr. Mary Gervase Administrator

Mende Coblentz Education Director

School Surrounding

District State

Non-White 12.12% 42.88% 23.59%

Limited English

Proficiency 0.00% 31.13% 8.52%

Special Needs 4.55% 10.32% 10.43%

Free & Reduced Lunch 27.27% 41.54% 49.62%

Academic Measure Result

State Accountability Designation (if applicable) None

Percentage of Students Meeting or Exceeding Proficiency

in Math 26.4%

Percentage of Students Meeting or Exceeding Proficiency

in English Language Arts 30.2%

Graduation Rate (4-year cohort data from 2014) N/A



Name of School: Syringa Mountain School, Inc. Year Opened: 2013 Operating Term: 10/10/2013-6/30/17 Date Executed: 10/10/2013

PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL COMMISSION - PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK

Idaho’s charter school legislation requires each public charter school authorizer to develop a Performance Framework on which the provisions of the Performance

Certificate will be based. Performance Frameworks must clearly set forth the academic and operational performance indicators, measures, and metrics that will guide the

authorizer’s evaluations of each public charter school, and must contain the following:

Performance Framework Structure

The measurable performance targets contained within the framework must require, at a minimum, that each school meet applicable federal, state, and authorizer goals for

student achievement. This Performance Framework was adopted by the Public Charter School Commission (PCSC) on August 30, 2013, and is intended for use with non-

alternative public charter schools authorized by the PCSC.

Introduction

• Indicators, measures, and metrics for student academic proficiency;

• Indicators, measures, and metrics for student academic growth;

• Indicators, measures, and metrics for college and career readiness (for high schools); and

• Indicators, measures, and metrics for board performance and stewardship, including compliance with all applicable laws, regulations and terms of the

performance certificate.

Academic:

A high percentage (60%) of a school’s total score for the Academic & Mission Specific Accountability Designation reflects the school’s performance on a set of

academic measures. These measures are the same for all non-alternative schools. The “Meets Standard” rating for each measure is designed to align closely

with state minimum standards as established in Idaho’s ESEA waiver and Star Rating System.

Mission-Specific:

A significant portion (40%) of a school’s total score for the Academic & Mission Specific Accountability Designation reflects the school’s performance on a set of

mission-specific measures. These measures may be academic or non-academic in nature, but must be objective and data-driven. The number and weighting of

mission-specific measures should be established during one-on-one negotiations between the school and authorizer.

During their first Performance Certificate term only, schools authorized to open in or before Fall 2014 may choose to opt out of the Mission-Specific section of the

framework. Schools choosing to opt out of Mission-Specific measures for their first term agree that the weight of those measures will be placed instead on the Academic

section, which then becomes the single, primary factor considered for purposes of renewal or non-renewal.

Operational:

Operational indicators comprise a secondary element for consideration during the renewal process. While each school will receive a score in the operational

section, this score should not be used as the primary rationale for non-renewal unless the non-compliance with organizational expectations is severe or systemic.

Particularly for a school whose academic performance meets or exceeds standards, poor results in this area are more likely to lead to a conditional renewal

decision than to non-renewal.

The Performance Framework is divided into four sections: Academic, Mission-Specific, Operational, and Financial. The Academic and Mission-Specific sections comprise the

primary indicators on which most renewal or non-renewal decisions will be based. The Operational and Financial sections contribute additional indicators that will, except

in cases of egregious failure to meet standards, be considered secondary.


Remediation:

Schools achieving at this level may be recommended for non-renewal or conditional renewal, particularly if operational and/or financial outcomes are poor.

Replication and expansion proposals are unlikely to succeed. The Framework places schools that earn 31-54% of the combined academic and mission-specific

points possible in this accountability designation. It is possible for 3-star schools with poor mission-specific outcomes, 2-star schools, or 1-star schools with strong

mission-specific outcomes to receive a remediation designation.

Critical:

Schools achieving at this level face a strong likelihood of non-renewal, particularly if operational and/or financial outcomes are also poor. Replication and

expansion proposals should not be considered. The Framework places schools that earn less than 30% of the combined academic and mission-specific points

possible in this accountability designation. It is possible for 1-star schools or 2-star schools with poor mission-specific outcomes to receive a Critical designation.

Financial:

Financial indicators comprise a secondary element for consideration during the renewal process. While each school will receive a score in the financial section,

this score should not be used as the primary rationale for non-renewal unless the school’s financial state at the time of renewal is dire. Particularly for a school

whose academic performance meets or exceeds standards, poor results in this area are more likely to lead to a conditional renewal decision than to non-renewal.

The PCSC may also elect to renew a financially troubled school that is clearly providing a high quality education, but notify the SDE of the situation so that the

payment schedule may be modified in order to safeguard taxpayer dollars.

Honor:

Schools achieving at this level in all categories (academic, mission-specific, operational, and financial) are eligible for special recognition and will be recommended

for renewal. Replication and expansion proposals are likely to succeed. The Framework places schools that earn 75-100% of the combined academic and mission-

specific points possible in this accountability designation. It is possible for 5-star schools, high-range 4-star schools with solid mission-specific outcomes, and mid-

range 4-star schools with strong mission-specific outcomes to receive an honor designation. Schools that fall into this point-percentage category but have poor

operational and/or financial outcomes will not be eligible for an honor designation.

Good Standing:

Schools achieving at this level will be recommended for renewal; however, conditional renewal may be recommended if operational and/or financial outcomes

are poor. Replication and expansion proposals will be considered. To be placed in this category, schools much receive the appropriate percentage of the

combined academic and mission-specific points possible and have at least a 3-star rating. The Framework places schools that earn 55-74% of the combined

academic and mission-specific points possible in this accountability designation. It is possible for 3-star or 4-star schools with solid mission-specific outcomes, or 5-

star schools with poor mission-specific, financial, and/or operational outcomes to receive a good standing designation. Although 2-star schools with strong

mission-specific outcomes could fall into this point-percentage range, they would not be eligible to receive a good standing designation due to their star ratings;

the Framework is drafted thus in recognition of Idaho’s statutory provision that the performance framework shall, at a minimum, require that each school meet

applicable federal and state goals for student achievement.

Accountability Designations

Calculation of the percentage of eligible points earned for each school will guide the determination of that school’s accountability designation: Honor, Good Standing,

Remediation, or Critical. The accountability designation will, in turn, guide the PCSC’s renewal or non-renewal decision-making. Measures for which a school lacks data due

to factors such as grade configuration or small size will not contribute to that school’s accountability designation. The PCSC will consider contextual factors affecting a

school’s accountability designation when making renewal or non-renewal decisions.



ACADEMIC MeasurePossible Elem /

MS Points% of Total Points POINTS EARNED Possible HS Points % of Total Points POINTS EARNED

State/Federal Accountability 1a 25 0% 0.00

1b 25 14% 15.00

Proficiency 2a 75 0% 0.00

2b 75 43% 12.54

2c 75 43% 14.35

Growth 3a 100 0% 0.00

3b 100 0% 0.00

3c 100 0% 0.00

3d 75 0% 0.00

3e 75 0% 0.00

3f 75 0% 0.00

3g 100 0% 0.00


4b1 / 4b2

4c

Total Possible Academic Points 900 100%

- Points from Non-Applicable 725

Total Possible Academic Points for This School 175

Total Academic Points Received 41.89

% of Possible Academic Points for This School 23.93%

MISSION-SPECIFIC Measure Possible Points % of Total Points POINTS EARNED Possible Points % of Total Points POINTS EARNED

Teacher Effectiveness 1 0 0.00

Upper Elementary Student Engagement 2 0 0.00

Early Elementary Student Happiness 3 0 0.00

Learning Environment Supportiveness 4 0 0.00

Total Possible Mission-Specific Points 0 0%

Total Mission-Specific Points Received 0.00

% of Possible Mission-Specific Points Received 0.00%

TOTAL POSSIBLE ACADEMIC & MISSION-SPECIFIC POINTS 175

TOTAL POINTS RECEIVED 41.89

% OF POSSIBLE ACADEMIC & MISSION-SPECIFIC POINTS 23.93%

OPERATIONAL Measure Points Possible % of Total Points Points Earned

Educational Program 1a 25 6% 25.00

1b 25 6% 15.00

1c 25 6% 25.00

1d 25 6% 25.00

Financial Management & Oversight 2a 25 6% 0.00

2b 25 6% 25.00

Governance & Reporting 3a 25 6% 25.00

3b 25 6% 15.00

Students & Employees 4a 25 6% 25.00

4b 25 6% 25.00

4c 25 6% 25.00

4d 25 6% 25.00

School Environment 5a 25 6% 25.00

5b 25 6% 25.00

5c 25 6% 25.00

Additional Obligations 6a 25 6% 25.00

TOTAL OPERATIONAL POINTS 400 100% 355.00

% OF POSSIBLE OPERATIONAL POINTS 88.75%

FINANCIAL Measure Points Possible % of Total Points Points Earned

Near-Term Measures 1a 50 13% 0.00

1b 50 13% 0.00

1c 50 13% 30.00 The financial measures included here are based on industry standards. They

1d 50 13% 50.00 are not intended to reflect the nuances of a school's financial status. A low

Sustainability Measures 2a 50 13% 0.00 score on any single measure indicates only the possibility of a problem. In

2b 50 13% 50.00 many cases, contextual information that alleviates concern is provided in the

2c 50 13% 50.00 notes that accompany individual measures. Please see the financial section of

2d 50 13% 0.00 this framework for additional detail.

TOTAL FINANCIAL POINTS 400 100% 180.00

% OF POSSIBLE FINANCIAL POINTS 45.00%



Range% of Points


% of Points


% of Points

Possible Earned

Honor

Schools achieving at this level in all categories are

eligible for special recognition and will be

recommended for renewal. Replication and

expansion proposals are likely to succeed.

75% - 100%

of points possible

90% - 100%

of points possible

85% - 100%

of points possible

Good Standing


Mission-Specific will be recommended for

renewal; however, conditional renewal may be

recommended if Operational and/or Financial

outcomes are poor. Replication and expansion

proposals will be considered. To be placed in this

category for Academic & Mission-Specific,

schools must receive the appropriate percentage

of points and have at least a Three Star Rating.

55% - 74%

of points possible

80% - 89%


65% - 84%

of points possible

Remediation


Mission-Specific may be recommended for non-

renewal or conditional renewal, particularly if

Operational and/or Financial outcomes are also

poor. Replication and expansion proposals are

unlikely to succeed.

31% - 54%

of points possible

61% - 79%

of points possible

46% - 64%

of points possible

Critical


Mission-Specific level face a strong likelihood of

non-renewal, particularly if Operational and/or

Financial outcomes are also poor. Replication

and expansion proposals should not be

considered.

0% - 30%


0% - 60%

of points possible

0% - 45%


Academic & Mission-Specific Operational FinancialACCOUNTABILITY DESIGNATION


SMS --- ACADEMIC FRAMEWORK (2014-2015 data)

INDICATOR 1: STATE AND FEDERAL ACCOUNTABILITY

Result (Stars) Points Possible Points Earned

Measure 1a Is the school meeting acceptable standards according to existing state grading or rating systems?

Overall Star Rating 5 25

Exceeds Standard: School received five stars on the Star Rating System 4 20

Meets Standard: School received three or four stars on the Star Rating System 3 15

Does Not Meet Standard: School received two stars on the Star Rating System 2 0

Falls Far Below Standard: School received one star on the Star Rating System 1 0

0

Notes

Measure 1b Is the school meeting state designation expectations as set forth by state and federal accountability systems?Result Points Possible Points Earned

State Designations

Exceeds Standard: School was identified as a "Reward" school. Reward 25

Meets Standard: School does not have a designation. None 15 15

Does Not Meet Standard: School was identified as a "Focus" school. Focus 0

Falls Far Below Standard: School was identified as a "Priority" school. Priority 0

15

Notes

INDICATOR 2: STUDENT ACADEMIC PROFICIENCY

Measure 2a Are students achieving reading proficiency on state examinations?

Result


Possible in this



Reading Exceeds Standard: 90% or more of students met or exceeded proficiency. 57-75 19 90-100 11 0



Falls Far Below Standard: Fewer than 41% of students met or exceeded proficiency. 0-19 19 1-40 40 0

0

Notes

Measure 2b Are students achieving math proficiency on state examinations?Result


Possible in this



Math Exceeds Standard: 90% or more of students met or exceeded proficiency. 57-75 19 90-100 11 0



Falls Far Below Standard: Fewer than 41% of students met or exceeded proficiency. 26.40 0-19 19 1-40 40 13

13

Notes



Measure 2c Are students achieving language proficiency on state examinations?Result


Possible in this



Language Arts Exceeds Standard: 90% or more of students met or exceeded proficiency. 57-75 19 90-100 11 0



Falls Far Below Standard: Fewer than 41% of students met or exceeded proficiency. 30.20 0-19 19 1-40 40 14

14

Notes

INDICATOR 3: STUDENT ACADEMIC GROWTH

Measure 3a

Are students making adequate annual academic growth to achieve proficiency in reading with 3 years or by

10th grade?Result


Possible in this



Growth in Reading Exceeds Standard: At least 85% of students are making adequate academic growth. 76-100 25 85-100 16 0




0

Notes

Measure 3b

Are students making adequate annual academic growth to achieve math proficiency within 3 years or by 10th

grade?Result


Points possible in

this RangePercentile Targets Percentile Points Points Earned


Growth in Math Exceeds Standard: At least 85% of students are making adequate academic growth. 76-100 25 85-100 16 0




0

Notes

Measure 3c

Are students making adequate annual academic growth to achieve language proficiency within 3 years or by

10th grade?Result


Possible in this



Growth in Language Exceeds Standard: At least 85% of students are making adequate academic growth. 76-100 25 85-100 16 0




0

Notes



Measure 3d Are students making expected annual academic growth in reading compared to their academic peers?Result (Percentile) Points Possible

Possible in this


Norm-Referenced

Growth in Reading Exceeds Standard: The school's Median SGP in reading falls between the 66th and 99th percentile. 57-75 19 66-99 34 0

Meets Standard: The school's Median SGP in reading falls between the 43rd and and 65th percentile. 38-56 19 43-65 23 0

Does Not Meet Standard: The school's Median SGP in reading falls between the 30th and 42th percentile. 20-37 18 30-42 13 0

Falls Far Below Standard: The school's Median SGP in reading falls below the 30th percentile. 0-19 19 1-29 29 0

0

Notes

Measure 3e Are students making expected annual academic growth in math compared to their academic peers?Result (Percentile) Points Possible

Possible in this


Norm-Referenced

Growth in Math Exceeds Standard: The school's Median SGP in math falls between the 66th and 99th percentile. 57-75 19 66-99 34 0

Meets Standard: The school's Median SGP in math falls between the 43rd and and 65th percentile. 38-56 19 43-65 23 0

Does Not Meet Standard: The school's Median SGP in math falls between the 30th and 42th percentile. 20-37 18 30-42 13 0

Falls Far Below Standard: The school's Median SGP in math falls below the 30th percentile. 0-19 19 1-29 29 0

0

Notes

Measure 3f Are students making expected annual academic growth in language compared to their academic peers?Result (Percentile) Points Possible

Possible in this


Norm-Referenced

Growth in Language Exceeds Standard: The school's Median SGP in language arts falls between the 66th and 99th percentile. 57-75 19 66-99 34 0

Meets Standard: The school's Median SGP in language arts falls between the 43rd and and 65th percentile. 38-56 19 43-65 23 0

Does Not Meet Standard: The school's Median SGP in language arts falls between the 30th and 42th percentile. 20-37 18 30-42 13 0

Falls Far Below Standard: The school's Median SGP in language arts falls below the 30th percentile. 0-19 19 1-29 29 0

0

Notes

Measure 3g Is the school increasing subgroup academic performance over time?Result


Possible in this


Subgroup Growth

Combined Subjects Exceeds Standard: School earned at least 70% of possible points in SRS Accountability Area 3. 76-100 25 70-100 31 0

Meets Standard: School earned 45-69% of possible points in SRS Accountability Area 3. 51-75 25 45-69 25 0

Does Not Meet Standard: School earned 30-44% of possible points in SRS Accountability Area 3. 26-50 25 30-44 15 0

Falls Far Below Standard: School earned fewer than 30% of possible points in SRS Accountability Area 3. 0-25 25 1-29 29 0

0

Notes



INDICATOR 4: COLLEGE AND CAREER READINESS

Measure 4a Are students participating successfully in advance opportunity coursework? Result Points Possible Points Earned

Advanced Opportunity

Coursework Exceeds Standard: School earned 5 points in SRS Post-Secondary Content Area: Advanced Opportunity 5 50

Meets Standard: School earned 3-4 points in SRS Post-Secondary Content Area: Advanced Opportunity 3-4 30

Does Not Meet Standard: School earned 2 points in SRS Post-Secondary Content Area: Advanced Opportunity 2 10

Falls Far Below Standard: School earned 1 or fewer points in SRS Post-Secondary Content Area: Adv Oppty 1 0

Notes 0

Measure 4b1 Does students' performance on college entrance exams reflect college readiness? Result Points PossiblePoints Earned

College Entrance

Exam Results Exceeds Standard: Effective in 2013-14, at least 35% of students met or exceeded the college readiness

benchmark on an entrance or placement exam. 5 50

Meets Standard: Effective in 2013-14, between 25-34% of students met or exceeded the college readiness

benchmark on an entrance or placement exam.) 3-4 30

Does Not Meet Standard: Effective in 2013-14, between 20-24% of students met or exceeded the college

readiness benchmark on an entrance or placement exam.) 2 10

Falls Far Below Standard: Effective in 2013-14, fewer than 20% of students met or exceeded the college


0

Notes

Measure 4b2 Does students' performance on college entrance exams reflect college readiness? Result Points Possible Points Earned

College Entrance

Exam Results Exceeds Standard: Effective in 2014-15 and thereafter, at least 45% of students met or exceeded the college


Meets Standard: Effective in 2014-15 and thereafter, between 35-44% of students met or exceeded the college

readiness benchmark on an entrance or placement exam. 3-4 30

Does Not Meet Standard: Effective in 2014-15 and thereafter, between 30-34% of students met or exceeded the


Falls Far Below Standard: Effective in 2014-15 and thereafter, fewer than 30% of students met or exceeded the


0

Notes

Measure 4c Are students graduating from high school?Result

(Percentage)Possible Overall

Possible in this


Graduation Rate

Exceeds Standard: At least 90% of students graduated from high school. 39-50 12 90-100 11 0

Meets Standard: 81-89% of students graduated from high school. 26-38 13 81-89 9 0

Does Not Meet Standard: 71%-80% of students graduated from high school. 14-25 12 71-80 10 0

Falls Far Below Standard: Fewer than 70% of students graduated from high school. 0-13 13 1-70 70 0

Notes 0



MISSION-SPECIFIC GOALS

Measure 1 Are the school's teachers effective?Result

Points


Exceeds Standard: 80% to 100% of students gave favorable responses on the Tripod survey regarding their teachers' effectiveness in


Meets Standard: 55% to 79% of students gave favorable responses on the Tripod survey regarding their teachers' effectiveness in


Does Not Meet Standard: 40% to 54% of students gave favorable responses on the Tripod survey regarding their teachers'


Falls Far Below Standard: Less than 40% of students gave favorable responses on the Tripod survey regarding their teachers'


0.00

Notes The Tripod Project® has been working with schools, districts, and states for a decade researching how students experience teaching and

learning in the classroom. Since 2009 Cambridge Education and the Tripod Project have been involved in the Measures of Effective

Teaching (MET) Project, a large scale research project supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, developing and vetting

student perception surveys. Of significance, the MET Project found that there was a valid link between student achievement and

student survey results, and that survey results are a stable, reliable measure. "Favorable responses" on the survey are responses of 4 or

5 on the 5-point scale.

Due to the large expense associated with administration of the survey, SMS will not administer the survey or report results to the PCSC


school to the PCSC by October 1 of that same year. SMS will administer the assessment during the 2015-16 school year and the results

will be available for the 2015-16 Annual Report.

Measure 2 Is the school engaging its upper elementary students in learning?Result

Points


Exceeds Standard: 80% to 100% of 3rd - 5th grade students demonstrated engagement in learning based on favorable responses on the


Meets Standard: 55% to 79% of 3rd - 5th grade students demonstrated engagement in learning based on favorable responses on the


Does Not Meet Standard: 40% to 54% of 3rd - 5th grade students demonstrated engagement in learning based on favorable responses

on the Student Engagement questions in the Tripod survey.65

Falls Far Below Standard: Less than 40% of 3rd - 5th grade students demonstrated engagement in learning based on favorable

responses on the Student Engagement questions in the Tripod survey.0

0.00

Notes Results will be reported by the school to the PCSC by October 1 of each year. SMS will administer the assessment during the 2015-16

school year and the results will be available for the 2015-16 Annual Report.



Measure 3 Is the school helping early elementary students to feel happy about their school experience?Result

Points


Exceeds Standard: 80% to 100% of 1-2nd grade students demonstrated happiness with their school experience at SMS based on their


Meets Standard: 55% to 79% of 1-2nd grade students demonstrated happiness with their school experience at SMS based on their


Does Not Meet Standard: 40% to 54% of 1-2nd grade students demonstrated happiness with their school experience at SMS based on


Falls Far Below Standard: Less than 40% of 1-2nd grade students demonstrated happiness with their school experience at SMS based on


0.00





Measure 4 Does the school climate reflect a positive and supportive learning environment?Result

Points


Exceeds Standard: 80% to 100% of 3rd-5th grade students felt that the school's learning environment was positive and supportive

based on their responses on the School Climate section of the Tripod survey.150

Meets Standard: 55% to 79% of 3rd-5th grade students felt that the school's learning environment was positive and supportive based

on their responses on the School Climate section of the Tripod survey.125

Does Not Meet Standard: 40% to 54% of 3rd-5th grade students felt that the school's learning environment was positive and


Falls Far Below Standard: Less than 40% of 3rd-5th grade students felt that the school's learning environment was positive and


0.00







INDICATOR 1: EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM25

Measure 1a Is the school implementing the material terms of the educational program as defined in the performance certificate?Result

Points


Implementation of

Educational Program Meets Standard: The school implements the material terms of the mission, vision, and educational program in all material respects

and the implementation of the educational program reflects the essential elements outlined in the performance certificate, or the

school has gained approval for a charter modification to the material terms.

No instances

of non-

compliance

documented

25 25.00

Does Not Meet Standard: School has deviated from the material terms of the mission, vision, and essential elements of the

educational program as described in the performance certificate, without approval for a charter modification, such that the program

provided differs substantially from the program described in the charter and performance certificate.

0

25.00

Notes

Measure 1b Is the school complying with applicable education requirements?Result

Points


Education Requirements


certificate relating to education requirements, including but not limited to: Instructional time requirements, graduation and

promotion requirements, content standards including the Common Core State Standards, the Idaho State Standards, State

assessments, and implementation of mandated programming related to state or federal funding.

25


certificate relating to the education requirements; however, matters of non-compliance are minor and quickly remedied, with



and provisions of the performance certificate relating to education requirements; and/or matters of non-compliance are not quickly

remedied, with documentation, by the governing board.

0

15.00

Notes The school fell short of multiple, federally-mandated participation rate targets for the 2015 ISAT.

Measure 1c Is the school protecting the rights of students with disabilities?Result

Points


Students with Disabilities


certificate relating to the treatment of students with identified disabilities and those suspected of having a disability, including but

not limited to: Equitable access and opportunity to enroll; identification and referral; appropriate development and implementation

of IEPs and Section 504 plans; operational compliance, including provision of services in the LRE and appropriate inclusion in the

school's academic program, assessments, and extracurricular activities; discipline, including due process protections, manifestation

determinations, and behavioral intervention plans; access to the school's facility and program; appropriate use of all available,

applicable funding.

No instances

of non-

compliance

documented

25 25.00


certificate relating to the treatment of students with identified disabilities and those suspected of having a disability. Instances of

non-compliance are minor and quickly remedied, with documentation, by the governing board.15


and provisions of the performance certificate relating to the treatment of students with identified disabilities and those suspected of

having a disability; and/or matters of non-compliance are not quickly remedied, with documentation, by the governing board.0

25.00

Notes



Measure 1d Is the school protecting the rights of English Language Learner (ELL) students?Result

Points


English Language Learners


certificate relating to requirements regarding ELLs, including but not limited to: Equitable access and opportunity to enroll; required

policies related to the service of ELL students; compliance with native language communication requirements; proper steps for

identification of students in need of ELL services; appropriate and equitable delivery of services to identified students; appropriate

accommodations on assessments; exiting of students from ELL services; and ongoing monitoring of exited students. Matters of non-


No instances

of non-

compliance

documented

25 25.00


certificate relating to the treatment of ELL students; however, matters of non-compliance are minor and quickly remedied, with



and provisions of the performance certificate relating to requirements regarding ELLs; and/or matters of non-compliance are not


0

25.00

Notes

INDICATOR 2: FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT

Measure 2a Is the school meeting financial reporting and compliance requirements?Result

Points


Financial Reporting

and Compliance Exceeds Standard: The school materially complies with applicable laws, rules, regulations, and provisions of the performance

certificate relating to financial reporting requirements, including but not limited to: Complete and on-time submission of financial

reports including annual budget, revised budgets (if applicable), periodic financial reports as required by the PCSC, and any reporting

requirements if the board contracts with and Education Service Provider; on-time submission and completion of the annual

independent audit and corrective action plans (if applicable); and all reporting requirements related to the use of public funds.

25


certificate relating to financial reporting requirements. Instances of non-compliance are minor and quickly remedied, with


Does Not Meet Standard: The school exhibits frequent and/or significant failure to comply with applicable laws, rules, regulations,

and provisions of the performance certificate relating to financial reporting requirements; and/or matters of non-compliance are not


See note 0 0.00

0.00

Notes The school has not maintained an expenditures website as required by §33-357, Idaho Code; this matter had not been remedied as of

August 31, 2015.

Measure 2b Is the school following Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP)?Result

Points


GAAP

Meets Standard: The school materially complies with applicable laws, rules, regulations, and provisions of the performance

certificate relating to financial management and oversight expectations as evidenced by an annual independent audit, including but

not limited to: An unqualified audit opinion; an audit devoid of significant findings and conditions, material weaknesses, or significant

internal control weaknesses; and an audit that does not include a going concern disclosure in the notes or an explanatory paragraph

within the audit report.

No instances

of non-

compliance

documented

25 25.00

Does Not Meet Standard: The school exhibits failure to comply with applicable laws, rules, regulations, and provisions of the

performance certificate relating to financial management and oversight expectations as evidenced by an annual independent audits;

and/or matters of non-compliance are not quickly remedied, with documentation, by the governing board.0

25.00

Notes



GOVERNANCE AND REPORTING

Measure 3a Is the school complying with governance requirements?Result

Points


Governance Requirements


certificate relating to governance by its board, including but not limited to: board policies; board bylaws; state open meetings law;

code of ethics; conflicts of interest; board composition; and compensation for attendance at meetings.

No instances

of non-

compliance

documented

25 25.00


certificate relating to governance by its board. Instances of non-compliance are minor and quickly remedied, with documentation, by



regulations, and provisions of the performance certificate relating to governance by its board; and/or matters of non-compliance are


0

25.00

Notes

Measure 3b Is the school complying with reporting requirements?Result

Points


Reporting Requirements


certificate relating to relevant reporting requirements to the PCSC, the SDE, and/or federal authorities, including but not limited to:

accountability tracking; attendance and enrollment reporting; compliance and oversight; additional information requested by the

authorizer.

25


certificate relating to relevant reporting requirements to the PCSC, the SDE, and/or federal authorities. Instances of non-compliance

are minor and quickly remedied, with documentation, by the governing board.

See note 15 15.00


regulations, and provisions of the performance certificate relating to relevant reporting requirements to the PCSC, the SDE, and/or

federal authorities; and/or matters of non-compliance are not quickly remedied, with documentation, by the governing board.

0

15.00

Notes The school's annual dashboard report, due November 28, 2014, was submitted 12/31/14.

INDICATOR 4: STUDENTS AND EMPLOYEES

Measure 4a Is the school protecting the rights of all students?Result

Points


Student Rights


certificate relating to the rights of students, including but not limited to: policies and practices related to recruitment and

enrollment; the collection and protection of student information; due process protections, privacy, civil rights, and student liberties

requirements; conduct of discipline.

No instances

of non-

compliance

documented

25 25.00


certificate relating to the rights of students. Instances of non-compliance are minor and quickly remedied, with documentation, by



regulations, and provisions of the performance certificate relating to the rights of students; and/or matters of non-compliance are


0

25.00

Notes



Measure 4b Is the school meeting teacher and other staff credentialing requirements?Result

Points


Credentialing


certificate relating to state and federal certification requirements. No instances

of non-

compliance

documented

25 25.00


certificate relating to state and federal certification requirements. Instances of non-compliance are minor and quickly remedied,



regulations, and provisions of the performance certificate relating to state and federal certification requirements; and/or matters of

non-compliance are not quickly remedied, with documentation, by the governing board.

0

25.00

Notes

Measure 4c Is the school complying with laws regarding employee rights?Result

Points


Employee Rights


certificate relating to employment considerations, including those relating to the Family Medical Leave Act, the Americans with

Disabilities Act, and employment contracts.

No instances

of non-

compliance

documented

25 25.00


certificate relating to employment considerations or employee rights. Instances of non-compliance are minor and quickly remedied,



regulations, and provisions of the performance certificate relating to employment considerations; and/or matters of non-compliance


25.00

Notes

Measure 4d Is the school completing required background checks?Result

Points


Background Checks


certificate relating to background checks of all applicable individuals. No instances

of non-

compliance

documented

25 25.00


certificate relating to background checks of all applicable individuals. Instances of non-compliance are minor and quickly remedied,



regulations, and provisions of the performance certificate relating to background checks of all applicable individuals; and/or matters

of non-compliance are not quickly remedied, with documentation, by the governing board.0

25.00

Notes



INDICATOR 5: SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT

Measure 5a Is the school complying with facilities and transportation requirements?Result

Points


Facilities and Transportation


certificate relating to the school facilities, grounds, and transportation, including but not limited to: American's with Disabilities Act,

fire inspections and related records, viable certificate of occupancy or other required building use authorization, documentation of

requisite insurance coverage, and student transportation.

25 25 25.00


certificate relating to the school facilities, grounds, or transportation. Instances of non-compliance are minor and quickly remedied,



regulations, and provisions of the performance certificate relating to the school facilities, grounds, and transportation; and/or


25.00

Notes While SMS does not provide transportation on school buses, they do provide all students with bus passes. Students are not required

to pay for the passes, though most students who are financially able choose to pay for the service.

Measure 5b Is the school complying with health and safety requirements?Result

Points


Health and Safety


certificate relating to safety and the provision of health-related services. No instances

of non-

compliance

documented

25 25.00


certificate relating to safety or the provision of health-related services. Instances of non-compliance are minor and quickly remedied,



regulations, and provisions of the performance certificate relating to safety and the provision of health-related services; and/or


25.00

Notes

Measure 5c Is the school handling information appropriately?Result

Points


Information Handling


certificate relating to the handling of information, including but not limited to: maintaining the security of and providing access to

student records under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act and other applicable authorities; accessing documents

maintained by the school under the state's Freedom of Information law and other applicable authorities; Transferring of student

records; proper and secure maintenance of testing materials.

No instances

of non-

compliance

documented

25 25.00


certificate relating to the handling of information. Instances of non-compliance are minor and quickly remedied, with



regulations, and provisions of the performance certificate relating to the handling of information; and/or matters of non-compliance


25.00

Notes



ADDITIONAL OBLIGATIONS

Measure 6a Is the school complying with all other obligations?Result

Points


Additional Obligations

Meets Standard: The school materially complies with all other material legal, statutory, regulatory, or contractual requirements

contained in its charter contract that are not otherwise explicitly stated herein, including but not limited to requirements from the

following sources: revisions to state charter law; and requirements of the State Department of Education. Matters of non-


See note 25 25.00

Does Not Meet Standard: The school exhibits frequent and/or significant failure to materially comply with with all other material

legal, statutory, regulatory, or contractual requirements contained in its charter contract that are not otherwise explicitly stated

herein; and/or matters of non-compliance are not quickly remedied, with documentation, by the governing board.0

25.00

Notes The school's 2013-14 annual performance report was not published on the school's website in accordance with §33-5209C, Idaho

Code. Continued failure to meet this requirement may impact scores on future annual performance reports.



INDICATOR 1: NEAR-TERM MEASURES

Measure 1a Current Ratio: Current Assets divided by Current LiabilitiesResult Points Possible

Points Earned

Current Ratio Current Ratio is:

Meets Standard: Current Ratio is greater than or equal to 1.1 OR Current Ratio is between 1.0 and 1.1 and one-year trend is positive (current

year ratio is higher than last year's). Note: For schools in their first or second year of operation, the current ratio must be greater than or equal

to 1.1.

50

Does Not Meet Standard: Current Ratio is between 0.9 and 1.0 or equals 1.0 OR Current Ratio is between 1.0 and 1.1 and one-year trend is

negative.10

Falls Far Below Standard: Current ratio is less than or equal to 0.9. 0.49 0 0.00

0.00

Notes

Measure 1b Unrestricted Days Cash: Unrestricted Cash divided by (Total Expenses minus Depreciation Expense / 365)Result Points Possible

Points Earned

Unrestricted Days Cash No. of Days Cash:

Meets Standard: 60 Days Cash OR Between 30 and 60 Days Cash and one-year trend is positive. Note: Schools in their first or second year of

operation must have a minimum of 30 Days Cash.50

Does Note Meet Standard: Days Cash is between 15-30 days OR Days Cash is between 30-60 days and one-year trend is negative. 10

Falls Far Below Standard: Fewer than 15 Days Cash. 1 0 0.00

0.00

Notes

Measure 1c Enrollment Variance: Actual Enrollment divided by Enrollment Projection in Charter School Board-Approved BudgetResult Points Possible

Points Earned

Enrollment Variance Variance is:

Meets Standard: Enrollment Variance equals or exceeds 95 percent in the most recent year. 50

Does Not Meet Standard: Enrollment Variance is between 85-95 percent in the most recent year. 91.20% 30 30.00

Falls Far Below Standard: Enrollment Variance is less than 85 percent in the most recent year. 0

30.00

Notes

Measure 1d DefaultResult Points Possible

Points Earned

Default

Meets Standard: School is not in default of loan covenant(s) and/or is not delinquent with debt service payments. No default or

delinquency

noted in audit

50 50.00

Does Not Meet Standard: Not applicable

Falls Far Below Standard: School is in default of loan covenant(s) and/or is delinquent with debt service payments. 0

50.00

Notes



INDICATOR 2: SUSTAINABILITY MEASURES 0

Measure 2a

Total Margin: Net Income divided by Total Revenue AND Aggregated Total Margin: Total 3-Year Net Income divided by Total 3-Year

RevenuesResult Points Possible

Points Earned

Total Margin and AggregatedAggregated 3-

Year Totals:

3-Year Total Margin Meets Standard: Aggregated 3-year Total Margin is positive and the most recent year Total Margin is positive OR Aggregated 3-Year Total

Margin is greater than -1.5 percent, the trend is positive for the last two years, and the most recent year Total Margin is positive. Note: For

schools in their first or second year of operation, the cumulative Total Margin must be positive.

50

Does Not Meet Standard: Aggregated 3-Year Total Margin is greater than -1.5 percent, but trend does not "Meet Standard" 10

Falls Far Below Standard: Aggregated 3-Year Total Margin is less than or equal to -1.5 percent OR The most recent year Total Margin is less

than -10 percent.-1.71% 0 0.00

0.00

Notes

Due to the Restatement of Pension Liability, as required by GASB 68, Net Position may be higher than expected. Changes in Net Position due to


restatement had a material effect on the standard outcome, lowering the result from "meets standard" (4.29) to "falls far below standard".

Measure 2b Debt to Asset Ratio: Total Liabilities divided by Total AssetsResult Points Possible

Points Earned

Debt to Asset Ratio Ratio is:

Meets Standard: Debt to Asset Ratio is less than 0.9 0.09 50 50.00

Does Not Meet Standard: Debt to Asset Ratio is between 0.9 and 1.0 30

Falls Far Below Standard: Debt to Asset Ratio is greater than 1.0 0

50.00

Notes

Due to the Restatement of Pension Liability, as required by GASB 68, Total Liabilities may be higher than expected. The restatement had no

material effect on the standard outcome and was removed from the Total Liability calculation in the reported standard outcome.

Measure 2c Cash Flow: Multi-Year Cash Flow = Year 3 Total Cash - Year 1 Total Cash AND One-Year Cash Flow = Year 2 Total Cash - Year 1 Total CashResult 0

Points Earned

Cash FlowMulti-Year

Cumulative is:

Meets Standard (in one of two ways): Multi-Year Cumulative Cash Flow is positive and Cash Flow is positive each year OR Multi-Year

Cumulative Cash Flow is positive, Cash Flow is positive in one of two years, and Cash Flow in the most recent year is positive. Note: Schools in

their first or second year of operation must have positive cash flow.

$2,193 50 50.00

Does Not Meet Standard: Multi-Year Cumulative Cash Flow is positive, but trend does not "Meet Standard" 30

Falls Far Below Standard: Multi-Year Cumulative Cash Flow is negative 0

50.00

Notes

Measure 2d Debt Service Coverage Ratio: (Net Income + Depreciation + Interest Expense)/(Annual Principal, Interest, and Lease Payments)Result Points Possible

Points Earned

Debt Service Coverage Ratio Ratio is:

Meets Standard: Debt Service Coverage Ratio is equal to or exceeds 1.1 50

Does Not Meet Standard: Debt Service Coverage Ratio is less than 1.1 1.03 0 0.00

Falls Far Below Standard: Not Applicable

0.00

Notes Due to the Restatement of Pension Liability, as required by GASB 68, Net Position may be higher than expected. Changes in Net Position due to


restatement had no material effect on the standard outcome.


SMS --- LONGITUDINAL RESULTS

ACADEMIC MeasurePossible

Points

2013-14 POINTS

EARNED*

2014-15 POINTS

EARNED*

2015-16 POINTS

EARNED

2016-17 POINTS

EARNED

2017-18 POINTS

EARNED

State/Federal Accountability 1a 25 N/A 0.00

1b 25 N/A 15.00

Proficiency 2a 75 N/A 0.00

2b 75 N/A 12.54

2c 75 N/A 14.35

Growth 3a 100 N/A 0.00

3b 100 N/A 0.00

3c 100 N/A 0.00

3d 75 N/A 0.00

3e 75 N/A 0.00

3f 75 N/A 0.00

3g 100 N/A 0.00


4b1 / 4b2

4c

Total Possible Academic Points Received 900 0.00 41.89 0.00 0.00 0.00

% of Possible Academic Points for This School N/A 23.93% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

*NOTE: 2013-14 Academic results are based on 2012-13 standardized tests. 2014-15 results are based on a different test and should not be directly compared.

MISSION-SPECIFIC MeasurePossible

Points

2013-14 POINTS

EARNED

2014-15 POINTS

EARNED

2015-16 POINTS

EARNED

2016-17 POINTS

EARNED

2017-18 POINTS

EARNED

Teacher Effectiveness 1 150 N/A N/A

Upper Elementary Student Engagement 2 150 N/A N/A

Early Elementary Student Happiness 3 150 N/A N/A

Learning Environment Supportiveness 4 150 N/A N/A

Total Possible Mission-Specific Points Received 600 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

% of Possible Mission-Specific Points for This School N/A 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

OPERATIONAL MeasurePossible

Points

2013-14 POINTS

EARNED

2014-15 POINTS

EARNED

2015-16 POINTS

EARNED

2016-17 POINTS

EARNED

2017-18 POINTS

EARNED

Educational Program 1a 25 N/A 25

1b 25 N/A 15

1c 25 N/A 25

1d 25 N/A 25

Financial Management & Oversight 2a 25 N/A 0

2b 25 N/A 25

Governance & Reporting 3a 25 N/A 25

3b 25 N/A 15

Students & Employees 4a 25 N/A 25

4b 25 N/A 25

4c 25 N/A 25

4d 25 N/A 25

School Environment 5a 25 N/A 25

5b 25 N/A 25

5c 25 N/A 25

Additional Obligations 6a 25 N/A 25

Total Possible Operational Points Received 400 0.00 355.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

% of Possible Operational Points for This School 0.00% 88.75% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

FINANCIAL MeasurePossible

Points

2013-14 POINTS

EARNED

2014-15 POINTS

EARNED

2015-16 POINTS

EARNED

2016-17 POINTS

EARNED

2017-18 POINTS

EARNED

Near-Term Measures 1a 50 N/A 0

1b 50 N/A 0

1c 50 N/A 30

1d 50 N/A 50

Sustainability Measures 2a 50 N/A 0

2b 50 N/A 50

2c 50 N/A 50

2d 50 N/A 0

Total Possible Financial Points Received 400 0.00 180.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

% of Possible Financial Points for This School 0.00% 45.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

ACCOUNTABILITY DESIGNATION2013-14

DESIGNATION

2014-15

DESIGNATION

2015-16

DESIGNATION

2016-17

DESIGNATION

2017-18

DESIGNATION

Academic & Mission-Specific N/A Critical

Operational N/A Good Standing

Financial N/A Critical


“Performance-based accountability is the cornerstone of charter schools.”

Alison Consoletti, The Center for Education Reform


Supplementary Academic Performance Data Academic proficiency comparisons may be found in Exhibit G1.

SMS CHARTER RENEWAL EXHIBIT H

PRE‐RENEWAL SITE VISIT

A pre‐renewal site visit is an important part of the charter renewal process. The purpose of a pre‐renewal

site visit is to observe and discuss the charter school’s programs, policies, practice, and procedures to

assess their efficacy and fidelity to the school's charter and aligned operating systems.

In fall 2016, pre‐renewal site visits of eleven schools scheduled for renewal consideration 2017 were

conducted with the primary objective of determining whether the schools were providing the appropriate

conditions for sustained success. Each evaluation team was comprised of a member of the PCSC staff and

an independent, external consultant. The external consultants were experts in areas such as curriculum

and instruction, fiscal management, and/or fields particularly relevant to the subject schools.

The site visit process and associated evaluation rubric were developed based on best practices from

authorizers across the country, including SUNY, Denver Public Schools, and Portland State University

(PSU), whose evaluators perform all site visits for the State of Oregon.

A copy of the evaluation rubric was sent to each renewal school in advance of the visit. Due to time

constraints and limited resources, schools were informed that it was highly unlikely all the measures

would be evaluated. Prior to the visits, PCSC staff and external consultants determined the rubric

measures of most value for each visit. The evaluation teams conducted interviews with diverse

stakeholders including school leaders, board members, teachers, and parents. The final site visit reports

were compiled from observations and comments at the agreement of both evaluation team members.

The PCSC staff contracted with four independent, external evaluators for the purpose of conducting pre‐

renewal site visits. One evaluator participated in each site visit. Each school’s site visit report lists which

members of the team participated in the visit. Brief evaluator biographies are provided below for

reference:

Dr. Sherawn Reberry, Director of Education Programs Idaho Digital Learning

Dr. Reberry is a former educator and administrator for both K‐12 and post‐secondary programs. With over

20 years of experience, she has spent the past 14 years in online education. Dr. Reberry currently serves

on the board for the Idaho Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Randy Yadon, Principal of Meridian Technical Charter High School

Mr. Yadon has over 25 years of education experience as a classroom teacher and administrator. He

currently serves as the Principal of Meridian Technical Charter School, a high‐performing charter

authorized by the West Ada School District.

SMS CHARTER RENEWAL EXHIBIT I I.1

Christine McMillen, Principal Atlas Alternative High School

Ms. McMillen has served as a classroom teacher and administrator for the past 15 years. She currently

serves as the Principal for Atlas Alternative High School in the Middleton School District.

Nils Peterson, Education Consultant

Mr. Peterson is the retired Assistant Director for The Center for Teaching, Learning, and Technology at

Washington State University. He has served as an education consultant for 20 years. Mr. Peterson is also

a founder and former Board Chairman for Palouse Prairie Charter School.


Syringa Mountain School Renewal Site Visit Evaluation Report

October 5, 2016



2

SYRINGA MOUNTAIN SCHOOL RENEWAL REPORT 2017

Charter School


4021 Glenbrook Drive

Hailey, ID 83333

(208) 806 ‐ 2880

Christine Fonner Administrator

Authorizer


(208) 332‐1561

www.chartercommission.idaho.gov

Tamara Baysinger, Director

Alan Reed, Chairman

Evaluators

Nils Peterson Education Consultant

Kirsten Pochop, PhD, MPA PCSC Charter Schools Program Manager


3


PURPOSE OF EVALUATION

Idaho Code §33‐5209B states that following an initial 3 year term, a charter may be renewed for

successive five year terms of duration. Syringa Mountain School is will be considered for renewal

during the spring of 2017. The purpose of the site visit is to gain additional, contextual information

regarding the academic, operational, and financial conditions of the school prior to the formation

of renewal recommendations.

Evaluation of Syringa Mountain School is based on the school’s performance relative to 1) federal

and state statutes pertaining to the administration of charter schools; 2) general standards of

effective school operation; and 3) additional requirements of the PCSC as a condition of charter

authorization. These additional requirements are described in the performance certificate and

framework.

In order to evaluate the school’s performance, the site evaluators applied a rubric (developed by

PCSC staff based on national best practices) to assess Syringa Mountain School in the following

areas:

Mission and key design elements

Program delivery: curriculum, instruction, assessment & evaluation, access & equity

Organizational capacity

Governance

Financial

Within each of these areas, indicators have been established to provide more specificity regarding

quality expectations. Using the descriptions, the evaluators assigned a rating to each indicator

establishing whether a school is exceeding, meeting, approaching, or not meeting the

expectations. Each rating is based on review of documents, observations, and interviews with

school representatives and stakeholders. The rubric (Appendix B) was provided to the school prior

to the evaluation process.

The school has been provided with a copy of this report and may respond with clarifications of

any data inaccuracies by December 15, 2016. Such responses should be included with the school’s

renewal application.


4


INTRODUCTION

Syringa Mountain School (SMS) is a Waldorf‐inspired, brick‐and‐mortar public charter school

located in Hailey, Idaho and serving grades K‐6. The charter states that SMS’s educational program

will focus on the whole child, nurturing students’ imaginations and social skills, as well as their

intellects. Second‐language, music, storytelling, handwork, farming, and nature take precedence

over technology, particularly in the early years. Teacher looping, which keeps students and

teacher groups together for multiple years, is a key component of the program.

The charter includes the following goals:

Achieve a three star or higher accountability rating.

Enable students to compete academically with their traditionally schooled peers. (The

petition noted that the Waldorf method often results in slower reading acquisition in the early

elementary years, but students at Waldorf schools typically match or exceed their traditional

peers’ reading skills by 8th grade.)

Ensure student mastery of the Common Core and Idaho State Standards as demonstrated by

whole child rubrics, annual narrative reports, and individual student portfolios.

Institute a thriving and complete Waldorf‐inspired program, including Waldorf training for all

teachers.

Model financial stability by maintaining properly funded programs, affordably financed

facilities, and fairly compensated staff.

Offer a beautiful, eco‐friendly campus and biodynamic farm and wilderness education

program.

Foster communication and volunteerism, both within the school and extending to the larger

community.

Although the standards detailed in the performance certificate supplant those in the charter,

these commitments represent the nature and anticipated effectiveness of the school promised

by its founding group.

The petition for SMS was approved by the PCSC in August 2013, contingent upon additional, minor

revisions to bring the document up to the established standard. Petition approval became final in

October 2013, at which time all revisions were considered completed satisfactorily. In December

2013, the PCSC approved an amendment permitting a larger initial enrollment cap and faster

growth rate. SMS opened in Fall 2014.

MISSION

Syringa Mountain School offers Waldorf‐inspired, liberal arts and arts‐integrated education,

incorporating sustainable living practices and experiential learning in a K‐8 public school setting.

Each child will impart meaning and direction to their lives, through cultivating their intellectual,

physical, emotional, social and creative capacities in natural learning environments. Through a

supportive community of peers, parents and teachers, each child will become a confident, self‐

directed and engaged learner, invested in his/her own education.


5


MISSION AND KEY DESIGN ELEMENTS

Is the school faithful to its mission, implementing the key design elements outlined in its

performance certificate?

Rating: Meets

Evidence: Interviews with Administration, Staff, and Parents

Classroom Observations

Detail: The stakeholders interviewed shared a common and consistent understanding of the

school's mission and key design elements. Some informants did not name the Waldorf model,

instead focusing on school features such as integrated arts curriculum. The school is working to

implement its mission and to resolve curricular scope and sequence conflicts that appear to exist

between the Waldorf method and Idaho’s learning targets.

To what extent is the charter school implementing distinctive instructional practices as outlined

in their contract with the authorizer?

Rating: Meets

Evidence: Interviews with Administration, Board, Staff, and Parents


Detail: The school implements the Waldorf‐model instructional practices that are described in its

charter. Teachers demonstrate varying levels of understanding and skill in the model, but all are

engaged in professional development on‐ and off‐site to enhance their practice. There is evidence

teachers are collaborating in a broad effort to implement the Waldorf methods and culture across

the school. The school is in the initial stages of defining its student learning outcomes and ways

to measure them within the school curriculum. It was not clear in the interviews if the school has

a plan for how the data will be used for improvement.


6


PROGRAM DELIVERY: CURRICULUM

Does the school's curriculum provide the opportunity for academic success for all students?

Rating: Approaches

Evidence: Interviews with Administration, Staff

Annual Reports

Detail: The school is working to harmonize the scope and sequence of the Waldorf model with

the scope and sequence implicit in the IRI. The administration and teachers appear to understand

the concerns regarding low state test scores, particularly regarding reading in the lower grades.

The school’s success with this curricular and outcomes challenge requires further monitoring.

Interviews indicated the school leader understood this was a priority.

Does the school provide clear, appropriate, and skilled delivery of curriculum content?

Rating: Meets

Evidence: Classroom Observations

Detail: Teachers appear to deliver purposeful lessons with objectives aligned to the school's

curriculum. It was unclear from the site visit how clearly and consistently lesson objectives are

communicated to students.

Lesson plans promote higher order thinking through an integration of art and handwork combined

with the academic activity. The Waldorf model claims this integration provides problem‐solving

skills and supports all students.

Has the school developed a well‐defined feedback loop for revising curriculum on an interim

and year‐end basis?

Rating: Approaches


Detail: The culture of assessment for learning does not appear to have been well developed in the

first two years of the school’s operation. The current administrator appears to grasp the

importance of establishing this culture among the staff. She is currently leading a willing staff

toward an implementation of multiple, grade level appropriate, assessments chosen based on

research and the needs of the student population. The school appears to be developing a clear

process for ensuring assessments are aligned with curriculum, standards, and performance goals.


7


Does the school effectively provide opportunities for student engagement?

Rating: Meets


Detail: The teachers appear to consistently promote the equitable involvement of all students.

The modes of involvement are less of a lecture/question/answer model and more related to

individual project work.

Teachers were observed frequently checking for understanding during classwork. The balance of

teacher to student engagement is aligned with the chosen teaching methodology and gives all

students the opportunity to be engaged with the materials.


8


PROGRAM DELIVERY: INSTRUCTION

Does the school recruit, support, and retain highly effective staff?

Rating: Approaches

Evidence: Interviews with Administration, Board, and Staff

Detail: While for the first two years, the school struggled to recruit, hire, and retain highly effective

personnel, the new administration is working diligently to address this concern. The teaching

staff, who have remained with the school since its inception, are an effective core group. The staff

seems committed to the mission and collaborates to maintain consistency in implementation of

Waldorf methods.

The teachers report attending off‐site professional development in the Waldorf model, which

appears to engage them in the scholarship of teaching and learning. The current leader supports

the continuation of this effort.

Does the school have strong instructional leadership?

Rating: Meets


Detail: The school leader is new this year. She seems focused on student learning and working to

align Waldorf ideas about achievement with Idaho standards. Teachers seem to be supportive of

this effort. It was unclear if the Board is attending to the nuance of the Waldorf‐Idaho

assessment/alignment issues.

The school leader is ensuring that the curriculum is reviewed and modified and that the delivery

of the curriculum is monitored. The school leader has initiated new practices aimed at ensuring

that relevant qualitative and quantitative data are collected and analyzed. The school leader is

aware of the need for improvement; a plan may not be fully articulated or implemented, but work

was clearly underway.

Does the school have leadership sustainability?

Rating: Approaches

Evidence: Interviews with Administration, Board


9


Detail: This is the third leadership team in the school’s three years of operation. The current

administrator appears to be a strong choice, but it is unclear if the Board has an underlying

strategy/criteria that would lead to finding an equally strong successor. Job descriptions and

qualifications were not examined. One of the challenges for a rural school with a distinctive

model, like Waldorf, is how to find leaders to ensure consistency in implementing the mission and

vision of the school.

Does the school offer professional development that supports the schools goals and the needs

of individuals?

Rating: Meets


Detail: The school is providing differentiated professional development on and off‐site based on

teacher experience, need, and content area. The school has prioritized PD aligned with the

Waldorf model in its budgets. Teachers report PD activities specific for their grade levels. Only

anecdotal evidence was provided regarding the effectiveness of the PD.


10


PROGRAM DELIVERY: ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION

Does the school deliver an academic program that provides improved academic outcomes and

educational success for all students?

This indicator was not rated.

Does the school have an adequate assessment system in place to evaluate instructional

effectiveness and student learning?

Rating: Approaches


Detail: The school is developing procedures to regularly administer valid and reliable assessments

that align to the Waldorf model. The goal appears to be improvement of student learning

outcomes. However, the process is in its early stages. It is unclear if the Board fully subscribes to

this effort; there seems to be an anti‐testing sentiment among parts of the school community and

this may extend to assessment for learning as well. The school's assessment system appears to

include measures of student performance for the purpose of interim, and summative evaluations

of all students in each core content area. The process has the potential to produce data that could

be used to analyze school wide performance and identify areas of improvement. Assessment data

is available to teachers and school leaders; it is unclear how the Board is engaged with assessment

and outcomes.

Does the school promote a culture of high expectations and is safe, respectful, and supportive?

Rating: Meets

Evidence: Interviews with Board, Staff, and Parents


Detail: Interviews of all stakeholders indicated a shared set of expectations for student behavior.

Classroom routines are established and implemented. The observed classroom environments

were managed in ways conducive to learning within the chosen model.


11


ACCESS AND EQUITY

Does the school offer adequate support for special populations?

This indicator was not rated and does not represent an area of concern.

Does the school address and support the needs of English Language Learners (ELLs)?


Does the school demonstrate an adequate demographic representation of the surrounding

district?

Rating: Does not meet


Annual Report

Student Retention Form

Detail: The student body does not reflect the demographics of the surrounding district. Both

parents and staff recognize this, and say they value increased diversity and are discussing ways

recruit minority (Hispanic) students. The school’s website does not show special attention to

eliminating barriers to program access by ensuring all information regarding non‐discriminatory

enrollment practices and availability of specialized services are readily available to parents,

students, and the general‐public.

Does the school have a strong, steady retention rate for students?


Evidence: Interview with Administration, Board

Student Retention Form

Meeting Minutes

Detail: The school lost almost 10% of its student body between the second and third year of

operations. Board minutes in the 2015‐16 SY discussed the possibility of dropping sixth grade

because of low interest. However, the administration indicated that they have made efforts to

monitor and minimize attrition to ensure stable and equitable enrollment. To help maintain its

enrollment, the school is discussing methods to address attrition from the lottery to first day of

school; school leaders believe that some students have SMS as a second choice when entering

the lottery. The school recognizes the budgetary implications of under‐enrollment and is


12


discussing strategies to increase family and student interest in the school; however, low

enrollment appears to be a more significant concern for administration than the Board.


13


ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACITY

Does the school sustain a well‐functioning organizational structure and professional working

climate for all staff?

Rating: Meets


Detail: The school has a new administrator who understands the importance of this concept and

is working to ensure clearly defined and delineated roles for staff, administration, and board

members. Interviews with teachers indicate that they understand the communication channels

and how to navigate the complexity of Board members who are also parents. There is a clear and

well‐understood system for decision‐making and communication among all members of the

school community. The Board is about to undergo some transition, as terms for some founding

members expire. A challenge for the leadership will be to provide professional learning for

incoming Board members so that the existing roles and relationships are maintained and

strengthened.

Are there effective communication channels between stakeholders?


Does the school have procedures in place to facilitate parental involvement?


Does the school facility support high quality teaching and learning?

Rating: Meets

Evidence: Facility Tour


Detail: The classrooms and facility are appropriately equipped to support the learning needs of all

students in the Waldorf model. The classrooms had plentiful arts and crafts supplies and the

kindergarten classroom was well equipped with toys and manipulatives. The academic program

can be supported in the current facility.


14


Are health, safety, and accessibility standards being met and is documentation being kept

current?



Facility Tour

Detail: Presently the 6th grade class is taught in an upstairs room. The Department of Building

Safety indicated on October 21, 2016 that the upstairs had not yet been cleared for student

occupancy. The school reported being in the process of constructing an elevator for ADA access

to the second floor.


15


GOVERNANCE

Do members of the school's board act as public agents authorized by the state and provide

competent and appropriate governance to ensure the transparency of school operations?

Rating: Meets

Evidence: Interview with Board

Detail: Board posts agenda and minutes of all meetings on the website, and minutes are available

to the public. The minutes examined give the impression the Board has systems and structures in

place to ensure meetings are effectively run and focus on governance level decision making.

Interview with the Board indicated an understanding of a policy governance model.

Does the board have policies in place that establish standards for overall management of the

school?


Does the Board demonstrate alignment with the school’s mission, vision, and core values while

remaining a governing authority?

Rating: Meets


Meeting Minutes

Detail: Based on examination of minutes and interview with members, Board appears to maintain

a governance role. Evidence in the minutes indicates that the Board is engaged in professional

learning. The Board is engaged in recruiting, selecting, and onboarding new members. It is unclear

how well this process is governed by policy or procedure.

Has the school's board developed a strategic plan?



16


Does the school's board provide appropriate academic oversight?



Detail: It was not clear that board members attended to student achievement data, as opposed

to putting faith in the Waldorf model. It appeared that a significant amount of the concern with

meeting Idaho’s Student achievement metrics was borne by the new school leader. The school is

underperforming in several key indicators, but the interview with the Board did not elicit clear

evidence that it was taking policy and budgetary action to address the issue. However, the Board

has hired a new school leader who appears to attend to student outcomes. It is early in the year

to know how the new leader will help the Board regularly monitor this data. The Board does not

appear to have set student achievement goals aligned with authorizer expectations and the

performance certificate; rather the Board is focused on implementation of the Waldorf model,

trusting it to ensure achievement of the goals by the end of the program. Staff has been hired to

provide support to disadvantaged learners as well as enrichment, but it was not clear that

decision‐making is driven by student performance data.

Does the school's board provide appropriate operational oversight?



Detail: The Board appears to monitor facility needs and has undertaken some remodeling of the

second floor to address capacity. The Board has not attended to, or at least not been successful

at, attending to the low enrollment. This could make an important contribution to the school’s

financial picture. No evidence was presented regarding how the Board evaluates the school

leader. The Board has taken action to hire new leadership but does not seem to have addressed

fiscal deficiencies.


17


GOVERNANCE: FINANCIAL

Does the school's board provide appropriate financial oversight?

Rating: Approaches


Detail: The Board appears to monitor progress around key financial metrics that are both short

and long‐term, including budget vs. actuals. The Board has members with finance expertise, and

all board members appear able to understand budgets, audits, and development. However, most

of the members of the Board do not appear to understand that the current fiscal state of the

school, which relies heavily on fundraising, could be unsustainable in the long‐term. This reliance

upon fundraising does not provide an adequate contingency plan to ensure the financial health

of the school. The school leader recognizes the fiscally precarious state of the school and has

trimmed the current budget for FY17. In addition, the administrator is attempting to maintain a

balanced budget that relies only upon fall fundraising efforts to meet school operational needs.

Does the school maintain appropriate internal controls and procedures?


Does the school maintain adequate financial resources to ensure stable operations?



Annual Audit

Financial Reports

Detail: Financial needs of the school are highly dependent upon variable income (grants,

donations, and fundraising). The school’s cash flow projections show that the school may not have

sufficient cash on hand to pay current bills and those that are due shortly. The school lacks liquid

reserves to fund expenses in the event of income loss. Consequently, the Board spends

considerable time monitoring financial operations. The roles of the Board and the previous school

leader in the budget creation process were unclear, but the budget makes large assumptions

about successful fundraising.


18


Is the school demonstrating strong short and long‐term fiscal viability?


Evidence: Interviews with Administration, Board, and Business Manager

Detail: The school has not met enrollment projections; enrollment is at or near the worst‐case

levels anticipated in the petition. The school talks about recruiting new students, but progress is

not evident. Historically, the school has met their aggressive fundraising targets, but revenue and

funding projections are uncertain because of reliance upon future fundraising. Margins and cash

flow are uncertain. It is unclear if the board appreciates this precarious situation and/or if the

situation has informed budget setting and priorities. The new school leader expressed the

intentions of reducing staffing to cut costs and re‐organizing fundraising to help with cash flow.

The Board’s role in these efforts was unclear.

Does the school operate pursuant to a long‐range financial plan in which it creates realistic

budgets that it monitors and adjusts when appropriate?



Is the school faithful to its mission, implementing the key design elements outlined in its performance certificate?

Indicators: All stakeholders share a common and consistent

understanding of the school's mission and key design elements as

outlined in the charter or subsequent amendments. The school has

fully implemented its mission and key design elements in the

approved charter or subsequent amendments.

Exceeds: All indicators are met

and the school engages in

activities and practices that go

beyond the indicators.

Meets: The school presents no

material concerns in any of the

indicators regarding mission and

key design elements.

Approaches: The school

presents a material concern in

one of the indicators regarding

mission and key design

elements.

Does not meet: The school


more than one of the indicators

regarding mission and key

design elements.

Notes:

To what extent is the charter school implementing distinctive instructional practices as outlined in their charter?

Indicators: The school implements the instructional practices that are

consistent with the educational program described in its charter.

Teachers demonstrate understanding and skill in the stated

instructional practices. The instructional strategies are consistently

implemented.







indicators regarding distinctive

instructional practices.




distinctive educational practices.




regarding distinctive educational

practices.

Notes:

Idaho PCSC Site Visit Evaluation Rubric

Please Note: This rubric contains a wide range of indicators based upon best practices nationwide. This rubric is designed to apply to most school models, but in the case of unique programs, it may be tailored slightly to better

evaluate those programs.

Mission and Key Design Elements

SMS CHARTER RENEWAL EXHIBIT J J.1

PCSC Site Vist Evaluation Rubric

Does the school's curriculum provide the opportunity for academic success for all students?

Indicators: The school's documented curriculum is aligned with the

school's mission. There are horizontally and vertically aligned scope

and sequence documents that outline grade level and subject learning

objectives. The curriculum supports opportunities for all students,

including diverse learners, to master skills and concepts.







indicators regarding curriculum.




curriculum.




regarding curriculum.

Notes:

Does the school provide clear, appropriate, and skilled delivery of curriculum content?

Indicators: Teachers deliver purposeful lessons with clear objectives

aligned to the school's curriculum. Lesson objectives are clearly

communicated to students with connections made to the larger

rationale and prior knowledge. Lessons are designed and

implemented with appropriate supports to ensure all students can

meet the targeted objectives. Teachers ensure all students' active and

appropriate use of academic language. Lesson plans and instructions

promote higher order thinking, precise academic language, and

problem solving skills with appropriate supports (including digital

supports) to ensure success for all students.







indicators regarding delivery of

curriculum content.




delivery of curriculum content.




regarding delivery of curriculum

content.

Notes:

Program Delivery: Curriculum

Page 2



Has the school developed a well-defined feedback loop for revising curriculum on an interim and year-end basis?

Indicators: The school utilizes multiple, grade-level appropriate

assessments chosen based on research and the needs of the student

population. There is a clear process for ensuring assessments are

aligned with curriculum, standards, and performance goals. There is a

benchmarking system in place to adjust strategies and curriculum

when appropriate. The feedback loop process is clear and involves

multiple stakeholders.







indicators regarding curriculum

feedback loop.




curriculum feedback loop.




regarding curriculum feedback

loop.

Notes:

Does the school effectively provide opportunities for student engagement?

Indicators: Questioning techniques consistently promote the

equitable involvement of all students. Varied and frequent checks for

understanding are observed throughout lessons and used to monitor

all students progress towards mastery. The balance of teacher to

student talk is aligned with chosen teaching methodology and gives

all students the opportunity to demonstrate mastery.







indicators regarding student

engagement.




student engagement.




regarding student engagement.

Notes:

Page 3



Does the school recruit, support, and retain highly effective staff?

Indicators: The school has developed and implemented policies and

strategies to recruit, hire, and retain highly effective personnel. The

school hires staff who can effectively implement the mission of the

school. The school has developed and implemented policies regarding

supports for staff. The school has developed and implemented

policies and procedures for evaluation of staff. Teacher turnover is

less than 15% each year. The school has clear procedures and criteria

around dismissal that include opportunity for improvement.







indicators regarding highly

effective staff.




highly effective staff.




regarding highly effective staff.

Notes:

Does the school have strong instructional leadership?

Indicators: The school leader ensures a focus on student learning and

achievement in alignment with the school's mission. The school

leader ensures that curriculum is reviewed and modified and that the

delivery of the curriculum is monitored. The school leader ensures

that relevant qualitative and quantitative data is collected and

analyzed. The school leader ensures that the school plan for

improvement is implemented. The school leader ensures that

teachers and staff are regularly and systematically evaluated.







indicators regarding strong

instructional leadership.




strong instructional leadership.




regarding strong instructional

leadership.

Notes:

Program Delivery: Instruction

Page 4



Does the school have leadership sustainability?

Indicators: The school has leadership team job descriptions that

include clear job responsibilities and qualifications. There is a

leadership succession plan in place to ensure consistency in

implementing the mission and vision of the school during transition.

There is a strong plan for developing/maintaining a leadership

pipeline, including both internal candidate development and external

partnerships for leadership development.







indicators regarding leadership

sustainability.




leadership sustainability.




regarding leadership

sustainability.

Notes:

Does the school offer professional development that supports the schools goals and the needs of individuals?

Indicators: Professional development (PD) is differentiated based on

teacher experience, need, and content area. The school has

established annual PD goals and priorities aligned with the mission,

values, and goals of the school. Professional development activities

are interrelated with classroom practice. The school regularly

evaluates the effectiveness of PD.







indicators regarding professional

development.




professional development.




regarding professional

development.

Notes:

Page 5



Does the school deliver an academic program that provides improved academic outcomes and educational success for all students?

Indicators: The school uses clear procedures for identifying diverse

learners and has adequate intervention programs for such students.

The school adequately monitors the progress and success of all

students, including diverse learners. Teachers are aware of their

student's progress, including meeting IEP goals, achieving English

proficiency or school-based goals for struggling students.







indicators regarding the

academic program.




the academic program.




regarding the academic

program.

Notes:

Does the school have an adequate assessment system in place to evaluate instructional effectiveness and student learning?

Indicators: The school regularly administers valid and reliable

assessments that align to the school's curriculum. The school has a

valid and reliable process for scoring and analyzing assessments. The

school's assessment system includes measures of student

performance for the purpose of interim, and summative evaluations

of all students in each core content area. Data from the school's

assessment system is used to analyze school wide performance and

identify areas of improvement. Assessment data is available to

teachers, school leaders, and board members.







indicators regarding adequate

assessment systems.




adequate assessment systems.




regarding adequate assessment

systems.

Notes:

Does the school promote a culture of high expectations and is safe, respectful, and supportive?

Indicators: The school's behavior and safety policies are documented

and shared with all stakeholders. All stakeholders in the school share

a common set of expectations for student behavior. Classroom

routines are established and implemented. The classroom

environment is conducive to learning.







indicators regarding school

culture.




school culture.




regarding school culture.

Notes:

Program Delivery: Assessment and Evaluation

Page 6



Does the school offer adequate support for special populations?

Indicators: Lessons are differentiated to meet the needs of all

students including accelerated, remediation, and ELLs. The school

consistently meets the needs of special education students, high-risk

students, and ELL's through appropriate interventions, staffing,

protocols, and programming. Students regularly meet IEP goals, and

the school is in full compliance.







indicators regarding support for

special populations.




support for special populations.




regarding support for special

populations.

Notes:

Does the school address and support the needs of English Language Learners (ELLs)?

Indicators: Observed instruction explicitly addresses academic

language and vocabulary, builds on background knowledge, and

provides opportunities for students to interact and practice oral

language throughout the lesson. Teachers use various strategies and

supports to ensure student mastery and provide regular opportunities

for students to practice English skills. Teachers differentiate for

varying language levels through intentional grouping adapted

materials/tasks and/or the use of supports. There are opportunities

for student interactions and student talk throughout the lesson.







indicators regarding English

Language Learners.




English Language Learners.




regarding English Language

Learners.

Notes:

Does the school demonstrate an adequate demographic representation of the surrounding district(s)?

Indicators: The student body reflects the demographics of the target

populations and/or surrounding district(s). The school has a student

recruitment and retention plan that includes deliberate, specific

strategies that ensure the provision of equity before, during, and

after enrollment. The school eliminates barriers to program access by

ensuring all information regarding non-discriminatory enrollment

practices and availability of specialized services are readily available

to parents, students, and the general public.







indicators regarding

demographic representation.




demographic representation.




regarding demographic

representation.

Notes:

Access and Equity

Page 7



Does the school have a strong, steady retention rate for students?

Indicators: Strong efforts are in place to monitor and minimize

attrition to ensure stable and equitable enrollment. The school shows

a low rate of student transfers out of the school. The school has

procedures in place to monitor its progress toward meeting

enrollment targets. The school maintains adequate student

enrollment.







indicators regarding student

retention.




student retention.




regarding student retention.

Notes:

Page 8



Does the school create and sustain a well functioning organizational structure and professional working climate for all staff?

Indicators: The school has clearly defined and delineated roles for

staff, administration, and board members. There is a clear and well-

understood system for decision making and communication among

all members of the school community. School leadership has

implemented a clearly defined mission and set of goals for all staff.

The school provides opportunity for professional development and

regular and frequent collaboration.








organizational structure.




organizational structure.




regarding organizational

structure.

Notes:

Are there effective communication channels between stakeholders?

Indicators: Decision makers follow a defined process and structure

inclusive of stakeholder voice and perspective. The leadership team

meets regularly with the Board. Two-way communication

mechanisms are established between parents and the school. If

contracting with an ESP, the Board effectively communicates with the

ESP to ensure it receives value in exchange for contracts.








communication channels.




communication channels.




regarding communication

channels.

Notes:

Does the school have procedures in place to facilitate parental involvement?

Indicators: The school has systems in place to communicate policies

or student performance to parents. Families are able to use the

school's communication system to access information. The school has

a clear process to act upon parental feedback to drive school

improvement.







indicators regarding parental

involvement.




parental involvement.




regarding parental involvement.

Notes:

Organizational Capacity

Page 9



Does the school facility support high quality teaching and learning?

Indicators: The classrooms and facility are appropriately equipped to

support the learning needs of all students. The academic program can

be supported in the current facility.







indicators regarding school

facility.




school facility.




regarding school facility.

Notes:

Are health, safety, and accessibility standards being met and is documentation being kept current?

Indicators: The school facility is well maintained. Any necessary

maintenance is up to date and complete. Regularly scheduled reports,

inspections, and monitoring procedures have been completed on-

time. The school has documentation supporting that health, safety,

and accessibility standards have been met. All documentation related

to above standards is available for review on-site.







indicators regarding health and

safety compliance.




health and safety compliance.




regarding health and safety

compliance.

Notes:

Page 10



Do members of the school's Board act as public agents authorized by the state and provide competent and appropriate governance to ensure the transparency of school operations?

Indicators: School board members follow all requirements of Idaho's

Open Meeting Law. The Board keeps appropriate minutes of all

meetings, and minutes are available to the public. The Board has

systems and structures in place to ensure meetings are effectively run

to allow for governance level decision making (including agendas and

advance materials for Board members).







indicators regarding appropriate

governance.




appropriate governance.




regarding appropriate

governance.

Notes:

Does the Board have policies in place that establish standards for overall management of the school?

Indicators: The Board approves appropriate school policies to ensure

compliance with all legal requirements. Decisions are made in

alignment with policies. The Board has all required officers in place

and is actively fulfilling the role as outlined in the job descriptions

included in the bylaws. The Board has key policies in place that they

regularly review and revise, including but not limited to: bylaws,

articles of incorporation, financial policies/ procedures, and

governance processes. The Board operates in compliance with all

bylaws.







indicators regarding board

systems and structures.




board systems and structures.




regarding board systems and

structures.

Notes:

Does the Board demonstrate alignment with the school's mission, vision, and core values while remaining a governing authority?

Indicators: The Board maintains governance, rather than

management responsibilities, in accordance with the school's

mission. The Board has a clear definition of its role as a governance

body aligned with achieving the mission, vision, policies, and

procedures that define the responsibilities between governance and

management. The Board regularly conducts self-evaluations and

secures training in any needed areas. The Board has a clear policy and

procedure for recruiting, selecting, and onboarding new board

members.








mission and vision.




board mission and vision.




regarding board mission and

vision.

Notes:

Governance

Page 11



Has the school's Board developed a strategic plan?

Indicators: The Board regularly engages in strategic planning to

influence the school's short and long-term direction as appropriate

for its stage of development. The Board spends the majority of its

time on strategic conversation and decisions that are key at its stage

of development, as opposed to reactive conversations and decisions.

Long term planning conversations are data-driven and focused on

student outcomes and organizational health.







indicators regarding strategic

planning.




strategic planning.




regarding strategic planning.

Notes:

Does the school's Board provide appropriate academic oversight?

Indicators: The Board has members with expertise in K-12 education,

and all board members are able to understand student achievement

data. Student achievement metrics, both interim and summative and

aggregate as well as disaggregated, are regularly monitored by the

Board. The Board sets student achievement goals aligned with

authorizer expectation and the performance certificate and regularly

monitors progress towards these goals. Decision making, including

around resource allocation and human resources, is driven by student

performance data.








academic oversight.




board academic oversight.




regarding board academic

oversight.

Notes:

Does the school's Board provide appropriate operational oversight?

Indicators: The Board has expertise in school operations. The Board

regularly monitors the school's growth and related facility needs,

taking action as appropriate. The Board evaluates the school leader

on at least an annual basis. The Board takes effective action when

there are organizational, leadership, management, facilities, or fiscal

deficiencies; or where the management or partner organization fails

to meet expectations.








operational oversight.




board operational oversight.




regarding board operational

oversight.

Notes:

Page 12



Does the school's Board provide appropriate financial oversight?

Indicators: The Board sets and regularly monitors progress around

key financial metrics that are both short and long-term, including

budget vs. actuals. There is a comprehensive, board adopted financial

policies document in place that is followed by both the board and

school leadership. The Board has members with finance expertise,

and all board members are able to understand budgets, audits, and

development. The Board sets and regularly monitors progress

towards financial goals. The budget creation process is based on data,

including sound revenue and enrollment projections, includes

contingencies, and involves multiple stakeholders.








financial oversight.




board financial oversight.




regarding board financial

oversight.

Notes:

Does the school maintain appropriate internal controls and procedures?

Indicators: The school follows a set of comprehensive, written fiscal

policies and procedures. The school accurately records and

appropriately documents transactions in accordance with school

leadership's direction, laws, regulations, grants, and contracts. Duties

are appropriately segregated or the school has implemented

compensating controls. There is an established system in place to

provide the appropriate information needed by leadership and the

Board to make sound financial decisions and to fulfill compliance

requirements. The school takes corrective action in a timely manner

to address any internal control or compliance deficiencies identified

by its external auditor.







indicators regarding internal

controls and procedures.




internal controls and

procedures.




regarding internal controls and

procedures.

Notes:

Governance: Financial

Page 13



Does the school maintain adequate financial resources to ensure stable operations?

Indicators: The school maintains sufficient cash on hand to pay

current bills and those that are due shortly. The school has liquid

reserves to fund expenses in the event of income loss. Cash flow

projections are prepared and monitored. Financial needs of the

school are not dependent on variable income (grants, donations, and

fundraising).







indicators regarding financial

resources.




financial resources.




regarding financial resources.

Notes:

Is the school demonstrating strong short and long-term fiscal viability?

Indicators: The school has met enrollment projections. Revenue and

funding projections are reasonable and certain. Margins, cash flow,

and debt levels are appropriate.







indicators regarding fiscal

viability.




fiscal viability.




regarding fiscal viability.

Notes:

Does the school operate pursuant to a long-range financial plan in which it creates realistic budgets that it monitors and adjusts when appropriate?

Indicators: The school has outlined clear budgetary objectives and

budget preparation procedures. Board members, school leadership,

and staff contribute to the budget process, as appropriate. The school

frequently compares its long-range fiscal plan to actual progress and

adjusts it to meet changing conditions. The school routinely analyzes

budget variances, the Board addresses material variances and makes

necessary revisions. Actual expenses are equal to or less than actual

revenue with no material exceptions.







indicators regarding a long-

range financial plan.



one of the indicators regarding a

long-range financial plan.




regarding a long-range financial

plan.

Notes:

Page 14


1 | P a g e

CHARTER SCHOOL PERFORMANCE CERTIFICATE

This performance certificate is executed on this 10th day of October, 2013, by and between the

Idaho Public Charter School Commission (the “Authorizer”), and Wood River Waldorf Methods

School, a Public Charter School, Inc. DBA Syringa Mountain School (the “School”), an

independent public school organized as an Idaho nonprofit corporation and established under the

Public Charter Schools Law, Idaho Code Section 33-5201 et seq, as amended (the “Charter

Schools Law.”)

RECITALS

WHEREAS, the Charter Schools Law was amended effective as of July 1, 2013 to

require all public charter schools approved prior to July 1, 2013 to execute performance

certificates with their authorizers no later than July 1, 2014; and

WHEREAS, on August 15, 2013, the Authorizer approved the charter petition (the

“Charter”) subject to conditions outlined in Appendix A;

NOW THEREFORE in consideration of the foregoing recitals and mutual

understandings, the Authorizer and the School agree as follows:

SECTION 1: AUTHORIZATION OF CHARTER SCHOOL

A. Continued Operation of School. Pursuant to the Charter Schools Law, the

Authorizer hereby approves the continued operation of the School on the terms and

conditions set forth in this Charter School Performance Certificate (the

“Certificate”). The approved Charter is attached to this Certificate as Appendix B.

B. Pre-Opening Requirements. Pursuant to Idaho Code Section 33-5206(6), the

Authorizer may establish reasonable pre-opening requirements or conditions (“Pre-

Opening Requirements”) to monitor the start-up progress of a newly approved public

charter school to ensure that the school is prepared to open smoothly on the date

agreed. The School shall not commence instruction until all pre-opening

requirements have been completed to the satisfaction of the Authorizer. Pre-opening

requirements are attached as Appendix C. If all pre-opening conditions have been

completed to the satisfaction of the Authorizer, the School shall commence

operations/instruction with the first day of school in Fall 2014. In the event that all

pre-opening conditions have not been completed to the satisfaction of the

Authorizer, the School may not commence instruction on the scheduled first day of

school. In such event, the Authorizer may exercise its authority on or before July 20

to prohibit the School from commencing operation/instruction until the start of the

SMS CHARTER RENEWAL EXHIBIT K K.1

2 | P a g e

succeeding semester or school year.

C. Term of Agreement. This Certificate is effective as of October 10, 2013, and shall

continue through June 30, 2017, unless earlier terminated as provided herein.

SECTION 2: SCHOOL GOVERNANCE

A. Governing Board. The School shall be governed by a board (the “Charter Board”) in a

manner that is consistent with the terms of this Certificate so long as such provisions are

in accordance with state, federal, and local law. The Charter Board shall have final

authority and responsibility for the academic, financial, and organizational performance

of the School. The Charter Board shall also have authority for and be responsible for

policy and operational decisions of the School, although nothing herein shall prevent the

Charter Board from delegating decision-making authority for policy and operational

decisions to officers, employees and agents of the School, as well as third party

management providers.

B. Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws. The articles of incorporation and bylaws of the

entity holding the charter shall provide for governance of the operation of the School as

a nonprofit corporation and public charter school and shall at all times be consistent with

all applicable law and this Certificate. The articles of incorporation and bylaws are

attached to this Certificate as Appendix D (the “Articles and Bylaws”). Any

modification of the Articles and Bylaws must be submitted to the Authorizer

within five (5) business days of approval by the Charter Board.

C. Charter Board Composition. The composition of the Charter Board shall at all

times be determined by and consistent with the Articles and Bylaws and all applicable

law and policy. The roster of the Charter Board is attached to this Certificate as

Appendix E (the “Board Roster”). The Charter Board shall notify the Authorizer of any

changes to the Board Roster and provide an amended Board Roster within five (5)

business days of their taking effect.

SECTION 3: EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM

A. School Mission. The mission of the School is as follows: Syringa Mountain School

offers Waldorf-inspired, liberal arts and arts-integrated education, incorporating

sustainable living practices and experiential learning in a K-8 public school setting. Each

child will impart meaning and direction to their lives, through cultivating their

intellectual, physical, emotional, social and creative capacities in natural learning

environments. Through a supportive community of peers, parents and teachers, each child

will become a confident, self-directed and engaged learner, invested in his/her own

education.

B. Grades Served. The School may serve students in grade kindergarten through grade

eight, per the approved growth table included as Appendix J.

C. Design Elements. The School shall implement and maintain the following essential


3 | P a g e

design elements of its educational program:

Use of a Waldorf-inspired program including:

Teacher looping such that cohorts of students move through multiple grades

together with the same classroom teacher;

Application of curriculum designed to be developmentally appropriate and

therapeutic for students;

Implementation of a schedule organized to include Main Lesson, Practice

Periods, and Specialty Subjects;

Balance of academic studies with artistic and social activities;

Alignment with the Idaho Common Core State Standards and Idaho State

Standards;

Fostering of strong parent involvement in the school, including provision of

parent educational opportunities; and

Creation of a safe learning environment through a positive but firm disciplinary

approach.

D. Standardized Testing. Students of the School shall be tested with the same standardized

tests as other Idaho public school students.

E. Accreditation. The School shall be accredited as provided by rule of the state board of

education.

SECTION 4: AUTHORIZER ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITIES

A. Oversight allowing autonomy. The Authorizer shall comply with the provisions of

Charter School Law and the terms of this Certificate in a manner that does not unduly

inhibit the autonomy of the School. The Authorizer’s Role will be to evaluate the

School’s outcomes according to this Certificate and the Performance Framework rather

than to establish the process by which the School achieves the outcomes sought.

B. Charter School Performance Framework. The Charter School Performance

Framework (“Performance Framework”) is attached and incorporated into this agreement

as Appendix F. The Performance Framework shall be used to evaluate the School’s

academic, financial and operational performance, and shall supersede and replace any

and all assessment measures, educational goals and objectives, financial operations

metrics, and operational performance metrics set forth in the Charter and not explicitly

incorporated into the Performance Framework. The specific terms, form and

requirements of the Performance Framework, including any required indicators,

measures, metrics, and targets, are determined by the Authorizer and will be binding on

the School.

C. Authorizer to Monitor School Performance. The Authorizer shall monitor and report


4 | P a g e

on the School’s progress in relation to the indicators, measures, metrics and targets set

out in the Performance Framework. The School shall be subject to a formal review of

its academic, mission-specific, operational, and financial performance at least annually.

D. School Performance. The School shall achieve an accountability designation of Good

Standing or Honor on each of the three sections of the Performance Framework. In the

event the School is a party to a third party management contract which includes a deficit

protection clause, the School shall be exempt from some or all measures within the

financial portion of the Performance Framework. In accordance with Charter School

Law, the Authorizer shall renew any charter in which the public charter school met all of

the terms of its performance certificate at the time of renewal.

E. Performance Framework As Basis For Renewal of Charter. The School’s

performance in relation to the indicators, measures, metrics and targets set forth in the

Academic and Mission-Specific, Operational and Financial sections of the Performance

Framework shall provide the basis upon which the Authorizer will decide whether to

renew the School’s Charter at the end of the Certificate term. As part of the Performance

Framework, the Authorizer agrees to consider mission-specific, rigorous, valid, and

reliable indicators of the School’s performance. These negotiated indicators will be

included in the Mission-Specific portion of the Academic and Mission Specific section

of the Performance Framework.

F. Authorizer’s Right to Review. The School will be subject to review of its academics,

operations and finances by the Authorizer, including related policies, documents and

records, when the Authorizer deems such review necessary. The Authorizer shall

conduct its reviews in a manner that does not unduly inhibit the autonomy granted to the

School.

G. Site Visits. In addition to the above procedures, the Charter School shall grant

reasonable access to, and cooperate with, the Authorizer, its officers, employees and

other agents, including allowing site visits by the Authorizer, its officers, employees, or

other agents, for the purpose of allowing the Authorizer to fully evaluate the operations

and performance of the School. The Authorizer may conduct a site visit at any time if the

Authorizer has reasonable concern regarding the operations and performance of the

School. The Authorizer will provide the School reasonable notice prior to its annual site

visit to the School. The School shall have an opportunity to provide a written response to

the site visit report no later than fourteen (14) days prior to the meeting at which the

report is to be considered by the Authorizer. If no written response is provided, the

School shall have the opportunity to respond orally to the site visit report at the meeting.

H. Required Reports. The School shall prepare and submit reports regarding its

governance, operations, and/or finances according to the established policies of and upon

the request of the Authorizer. However, to the extent possible, the Authorizer shall not

request reports from the School that are otherwise available through student information

systems or other data sources reasonably available to the Authorizer.


5 | P a g e

SECTION 5: SCHOOL OPERATIONS

A. In General. The School and the Charter Board shall operate at all times in

accordance with all federal and state laws, local ordinances, regulations and Authorizer

policies applicable to charter schools. Authorizer policies in effect for the duration of

this Certificate are attached as Appendix G.

B. Maximum Enrollment. The maximum number of students who may be enrolled in

the school shall be 520 students, with annual per-class and overall enrollment caps to be

followed as outlined in the approved growth table attached as Appendix J.

C. Enrollment Policy. The School shall make student recruitment, admissions,

enrollment and retention decisions in a nondiscriminatory manner and without regard to

race, color, creed, national origin, sex, marital status, religion, ancestry, disability or

need for special education services. In no event may the School limit admission based on

race, ethnicity, national origin, disability, gender, income level, athletic ability, or

proficiency in the English language. If there are more applications to enroll in the charter

school than there are spaces available, the charter school shall select students to attend

using a random selection process that shall be publicly noticed and open to the public.

The School shall follow the enrollment policy approved by the Authorizer and

incorporated into this agreement as Appendix H.

D. School Facilities. The School shall identify the location of its facilities pursuant to the

terms of the Pre-Opening Requirements. The School shall provide reasonable

notification to the Authorizer of any change in the location of its facilities.

E. Attendance Area. The School’s primary attendance area is as follows: Blaine County

School District. An attendance area map is attached as Appendix K.

F. Staff. Instructional staff shall be certified teachers as provided by rule of the state board

of education. All full-time staff members of the School will be covered by the public

employee retirement system, federal social security, unemployment insurance, worker’s

compensation insurance, and health insurance.

G. Alignment with All Applicable Law. The School shall comply with all applicable

federal and state laws, rules, and regulations. In the event any such laws, rules, or

regulations are amended, the School shall be bound by any such amendment upon the

effective date of said amendment.

SECTION 6: SCHOOL FINANCE

A. General. The School shall comply with all applicable financial and budget statutes,

rules, regulations, and financial reporting requirements, as well as the requirements

contained in the School Performance Framework incorporated into this contract

as Appendix F.

B. Financial Controls. At all times, the Charter School shall maintain appropriate


6 | P a g e

governance and managerial procedures and financial controls which procedures and

controls shall include, but not be limited to: (1) commonly accepted accounting practices

and the capacity to implement them (2) a checking account; (3) adequate payroll

procedures; (4) procedures for the creation and review of monthly and quarterly

financial reports, which procedures shall specifically identify the individual who will be

responsible for preparing such financial reports in the following fiscal year; (5) internal

control procedures for cash receipts, cash disbursements and purchases; and (6)

maintenance of asset registers and financial procedures for grants in accordance with

applicable state and federal law.

C. Financial Audit. The School shall submit audited financial statements from an

independent auditor to the Authorizer no later than October 15 of each year.

D. Annual Budgets. The School shall adopt a budget for each fiscal year, prior to the

beginning of the fiscal year. The budget shall be in the Idaho Financial Accounting

Reporting Management Systems (IFARMS) format and any other format as may be

reasonably requested by the Authorizer.

SECTION 7: TERMINATION, NON-RENEWAL AND REVOCATION

A. Termination by the School. Should the School choose to terminate its

Charter before the expiration of the Certificate, it may do so upon written notice

to the Authorizer. Any school terminating its charter shall work with the

Authorizer to ensure a smooth and orderly closure and transition for students and

parents, as guided by the public charter school closure protocol established by the

Authorizer attached as Appendix I.

B. Nonrenewal. The Authorizer may non-renew the Charter at the expiration of the

Certificate if the School failed to meet one (1) or more of the terms of its

Certificate. Any school which is not renewed shall work with the Authorizer to

ensure a smooth and orderly closure and transition for students and parents, as

guided by the public charter school closure protocol established by the Authorizer

attached as Appendix I.

C. Revocation. The School’s Charter may be revoked by the Authorizer if the School

has failed to meet any of the specific, written renewal conditions attached, if

applicable, as Appendix A for necessary improvements established pursuant to

Idaho Code§ 33-5209B(1) by the dates specified. Revocation may not occur until

the public charter school has been afforded a public hearing, unless the Authorizer

determines that continued operation of the public charter school presents an

imminent public safety issue. If the School’s Charter is revoked, the School shall

work with the Authorizer ensure a smooth and orderly closure and transition for

students and parents, as guided by the public charter school closure protocol

established by the Authorizer attached as Appendix I.

D. Dissolution. Upon termination of the Charter for any reason by the Charter Board,




The Performance Certificate Appendices are excluded from this document due to their substantial

length. However, they are available upon request from the PCSC office.


AUXILIARY DATA SUBMITTED BY SCHOOL

The renewal process included an optional opportunity for schools to submit auxiliary performance data of which the PCSC may not otherwise be aware. Schools were invited to make their case for renewal by providing academic, mission‐specific, operational, or financial information that was not already captured by the performance framework. In March of the pre‐renewal year, PCSC staff discussed with each school’s leadership the kinds of auxiliary data that would be particularly helpful for that individual school. The Renewal Guidance and Application document provided instructions and examples to assist schools in submitting meaningful data. SMS’s auxiliary data submission included the following:

Supplementary Data Form ‐‐ The school used the IPCSC Supplementary Renewal Data Form to

provide an overview of their attached documentation.

2015‐16 Score Data from all Students in the following Assessments: S‐DMS, WIDA, Intervention,

S‐DMS, and ISAT, “Student Assessment Master List”

2014‐15 IRI Data for K‐3 students for September and April assessments.

2014‐15 & 2015‐16 IRI year‐over‐year comparison data for K‐3, “Student Assessment Master List

(IRI Comparison)”

2014‐15 & 2015‐16 Teacher Rosters

2016‐17 Student Enrollment Numbers

2016‐17 Three Year Solvency Plan

All auxiliary data is included in its entirety without any modifications by PCSC staff.

SMS CHARTER RENEWAL EXHIBIT L L.1


Supplementary Renewal Data Form

Syringa Mountain School #488

► Supplementary Data

Subject Area Issue Attached Documentation

Academic / Student

Growth Data K-3

Reading

Our K – 3rd grade students score below average in

comparison to our district on IRI. This is expected

and explained within our philosophy and approach in

our charter. By 3rd grade, the majority of our

students are mastering or meeting expectations.

Student Assessment Master List -names removed .xlsx

(15-16 Whole School)

Academic / Growth for

intervention level

students Reading

Our school has a sizeable population of below grade

level students in IRI. These students show

significant growth from 14-15 to 15-16.


(IRI Comparison)

Academic / Growth for

mid-year transfer

students Reading

Significant increase in number of students at or almost at proficiency by 3rd grade. This is in alignment with our expectations for the Waldorf method of learning.


(IRI Comparison)

Academic / Student

Growth Data K-6 Math

Students showed significant gains in math within

one year as demonstrated by their SMDS scores.



Academic / Student at

Grade Level 5 & 6 Math

and Reading

As our charter states, we expect different growth

increases in lower grades but by 5th grade, majority

of students will be at grade level. This is shown in

our test scores for 5th and 6th grades.



Academic / Overall

Growth Reading K-3

Overall, a significant number of students improved

on scores schoolwide from 14-15 to 15-16 on IRI.


(IRI Comparison)

Operations / Staff

Retention & Attrition

There has been a higher level of turnover in staffing

in the first two years of operation than expected.

Heading into year 3, we have retained all teaching

staff and majority of support/specials staff.

15-16 & 16-17 Teacher Roster.xlsx

Operations / Student

Enrollment

There has been lower than desired enrollment in the

first two years of operation. Our school has

increased enrollment for the 16-17 school year

successfully with many grade levels currently

holding a wait list.

16-17 Enrollment Numbers.xlsx


Operations / Long-

Term Financial

Solvency

A large portion of our operations depend on

fundraising which could be potentially

unsustainable. We have hired a full time

development director, created an aggressive long-

term solvency plan which includes increasing

enrollment numbers at a higher rate annually,

adding full-time staff to secure long-term and multi-

year funding, and looking for capital

investors/grants for expansion and growth.

16-17 3-Year Solvency Plan.doc








SCORING RUBRIC

FALL

Kindergarten:

Letter Naming Fluency (LNF) 0-2=intensive 3-10=strategic 11-above=benchmark

Letter Sound Fluency (LSF) 0-0=intensive 1-1=strategic 2-above=benchmark

1st Grade:


Fall Reading Curriculum Based Measure (RCBM) 0-0=intensive 1-1 Strategic 2-above=benchmark

2nd

Grade:

Fall Reading Curriculum based Measure (RCBM) 0-26=Intensive 27-53= strategic 54-above=benchmark

3rd

Grade:

Fall Reading Curriculum Based Measure (RCBM) 0-48= intensive 49-76= Strategic 77=above benchmark

SPRING

Kindergarten:

Letter Naming Fluency (LNF) 0-17=intensive 18-29=strategic 30-above=benchmark


1st Grade:


Spring Reading Curriculum Based Measure (RCBM) 0-27=intensive 28-52 Strategic 53-above=benchmark

2nd

Grade:

Spring Reading Curriculum based Measure (RCBM) 0-67=Intensive 68-91= strategic 92-above=benchmark

3rd

Grade:

Spring Reading Curriculum Based Measure (RCBM) 0-81= intensive 82-109= Strategic 110=above benchmark

KEY= Blue = above benchmark, Red = Intensive Black= Strategic


SIGNIFICANT DECREASE IN NUMBER OF STUDENTS AT LEVEL 1 BETWEEN K and 3 and BETWEEN 14-15 and 15-16


SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN NUMBER OF STUDENTS AT OR ALMOST AT PROFICIENCY BY 3RD GRADESIGNIFICANT DECREASE IN NUMBER OF STUDENTS AT LEVEL 1 BETWEEN K and 3 and BETWEEN 14-15 and 15-16


Staff Directory 2015-16 Staff Directory 2016-17

First Name Last Name Position First Name Last Name Position

Mandy Palan K Mandy Palan K

Kristin Funk 1 Shannon Connauton 1

Keith Davis 2 Kristin Funk 2

Amy Schlatter 3 Keith Davis 3

Shannon Connauton 4 Amy Schlatter 4

Angie Grant 5 Kirsten Kolkmann 5

Tanya Zaccardi 6 Angie Grant 6

Crystal England Garden Tanya Zaccardi 6

Autumn Lear Handwork Crystal England Garden/Science

Kelly Siemon Kinder Assistant Autumn Lear Handwork

Erin Mungall Music Kelly Siemon Kinder Assistant

Julia Wilson Spanish Erin Mungall Music

Serena Chin Mandarin Julia Wilson Spanish

Cliff Frates Spec. Ed Para Cliff Frates Spec. Ed Para

Mariska Mann Spec. Ed Para Mariska Mann Spec. Ed Para



2016-2017 Enrollment (On-Going - As of July 12, 2016)

# of Students Waitlist

Grade 1 17 No

Grade 2 24 No

Grade 3 21 No

Grade 4 25 2

Grade 5 25 0

Grade 5/6 25 No

Grade K 21 3

158 5



16-17 3-Year Solvency Plan

Year 1: 2016-2017

Hire Development Director Full-Time

Two Operation Fundraising Campaigns per year @ $150,000 each (Harvest Gala &

Hoe Down) Two small fundraising campaigns per year for specific needs identified by staff Increase grant writing for programmatic expansion and support Provide support for teacher writing grants Increase grant writing for long-term, multi-year curriculum and program support Apply for capital project and expansion grants (upstairs renovations) Increase enrollment to 190

Year 2: 2016-2017


Hoe Down) Two small fundraising campaigns per year for specific needs identified by staff Endowment search

Grant writing to expand into full middle school or split grade classes in elementary

Increase grant writing for long-term, multi-year curriculum and program support Apply for capital project and expansion grants (elevator for building) Increase enrollment to 210

Year 3: 2017-2018


Hoe Down) Two small fundraising campaigns per year for specific needs identified by staff Endowment search

Grant writing to expand into new building for elementary, expand middle school

Continue grant writing for long-term, multi-year curriculum and program support Increase enrollment to 250


Application for Charter Renewal

SYRINGA MOUNTAIN SCHOOL

4021 Glenbrook Drive Hailey ID 83333

Christine Fonner Director of School

208-806-2880 [email protected]

4021 Glenbrook Drive, Hailey ID 83333

Date of Application Approval by School Board: December 7, 2016

Application Submission Date: December 15, 2016

SMS CHARTER RENEWAL EXHIBIT M M.1

2

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3

SUMMARY OF SCHOOL’S MISSION AND KEY DESIGN ELEMENTS 3 SUMMARY OF MAJOR SUCCESS AND CHALLENGES 3 SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO THE FOUR CENTRAL QUESTIONS 4

APPLICATION NARRATIVE 5

IS THE SCHOOL AN ACADEMIC SUCCESS? 5 IS THE SCHOOL ORGANIZATIONALLY SOUND AND COMPLIANT WITH APPLICABLE LAWS & REGULATIONS? 13 IS THE SCHOOL A FISCALLY SOUND, VIABLE ORGANIZATION? 16 IF RENEWED, WHAT IS THE SCHOOL’S PLAN FOR OUR NEXT PERFORMANCE CERTIFICATE TERM? 18

EXHIBITS 22


3

Executive Summary Summary of School’s Mission and Key Design Elements

Our Mission Syringa Mountain School provides a rigorous, arts-integrated educational experience as a public school guided by the Core Principles of Waldorf Education and aims to develop students who are compassionate, eco-literate, critical thinkers prepared to meet the demands of their world. Key Design Elements As a result of attending Syringa Mountain School, students will demonstrate:

Reverence and stewardship for self, others, and the earth Creative and imaginative thinking Critical thinking and good judgment Literacy proficiency Responsibility and self-reliance Passion for lifelong learning

The Waldorf method of education offers an academically rigorous curriculum in an arts-integrated context. We integrate music, painting, language, and garden into traditional school subjects. Our students learn through developmentally appropriate skill-based and project based approaches.

Summary of Major Success and Challenges

Now in our third year of operation, we have seen a number of significant successes and we are actively working to improve areas identified as in need of growth. Successes Staff: We have a strong core teaching team that has been with us since inception. These teachers have created a rich and rigorous curriculum for our students and have maintained the efficacy of our programming specific to our mission and charter. These staff members have been a significant strength in delivering on the vision for the school. Strategic Planning: Our new leadership has retained outside counsel to assist in creating an effective strategic plan for the school. In addition, the director of school has been working with the board of directors to begin the process of systematic school improvement. Curriculum and Instruction Improvements: We are implementing and adopting curriculum and assessment frameworks to meet student needs. We have hired two personnel to meet intervention needs. We are meeting regularly to continually discuss instructional practices and data-driven approaches to improving student proficiency. Current Improvement Focus All small start-ups face challenges; Syringa has not been immune to these challenges but has faced these challenges head on.

1. Academic Proficiency: When we opened, 71% of incoming students were below grade level ISAT ELA in 2014 and 74% were below grade level ISAT MATH in 2014 (Exhibit C). Public Waldorf education typically requires five years to show growth and


4

improvement. With ¾ of our students coming in below grade level, we are working to meet our five-year mark.

2. Financial Viability: There is a significant gap in our funding compared to our neighboring school district. Receiving absolutely no local funds, we work hard to fundraise the deficit. In our two years, we raised $403,000. We are responding to the long-term need for sustainability with a focused campaign to increase enrollment.

3. Enrollment and Growth: We have hired a confident, motivated and experienced leader to develop and implement a framework for effective operations and practices. We have also built a solid 5-year plan for growth, stability, and viability. We are focusing on creating financial stability, increasing diversity, and becoming a long-term school choice to more families in the Wood River Valley

4. Board Governance: We are transitioning from a “founding” board to a “working” board. The board still consists primarily of parents without previous board experience, even though there have been ongoing board recruitment efforts. The Board is actively seeking mentorship and is working with the school leader to better define roles, responsibilities and expectations.

Summary of Responses to the Four Central Questions

Is the school an academic success? The school is on a pathway towards success. We are showing student improvement in proficiency and have implemented frameworks to meet student needs. Staff members are receiving professional development support and training. Is the school organizationally sound and compliant with applicable laws and regulations? The school is in compliance with all laws and regulations. We have published all required documentation. We have aligned our curriculum and instruction to the Idaho Common Core State Standards and are completing a curriculum map. We are working to increase diversity to better reflect the population of the Wood River Valley. Is the school a fiscally sound and viable organization? The Board understands the critical need to develop a fiscally sound and viable long-term financial plan. Focus is being directed towards increasing enrollment, increasing efficiency in program cost, and understanding the complexities of the state funding formula pertaining to operational costs. The Board is reviewing the current budget to better meet our short-term financial needs while also completing steps to purchase our building. If renewed, what is the school’s plan for its next performance certificate term? We plan to complete our systematic school improvement plan and continue the work our new school director has instigated this year. We will increase enrollment, diversity, and our financial stability. We will complete a strategic plan to increase student achievement. Over the five-year term, we will fulfill our charter key design elements and will meet expectations outlined in the Idaho Public Charter School Commission Performance Framework. Signatures Randy Flood Christine Fonner Chairman, Board of Directors Director of School


5

Application Narrative

Is the School an Academic Success?

We are growing towards academic success. Our Grade class tested Advanced on ISAT Science in May 2016 and Proficient in ISAT Math. We are showing that 90% of our students improved their scores in both literacy and math on the ISAT from our first year in operation to our second (Exhibit F). Our teachers are reporting that in our first quarter of our third year, we are already showing significant student progress. % of our students in fourth grade progressed from below grade level to exceeding benchmark in the AIMS Web Math assessment (Exhibit I). The school needs more time to show student progress. With 71% of our student body entering Syringa Mountain School below proficiency levels in literacy and 74% in math, it will take multiple years beyond our initial opening years to gain in proficiency percentage (Exhibit C). Our school leader is implementing clear procedures, curriculum frameworks, and instructional practices. Our biggest key to success will be a combination of rigorous curriculum, strong research-based instruction, and aligning our public school accountability requirements to our Waldorf foundation and curriculum. We have put strong framework, training, and interventions in place to grow towards proficiency at a rapid pace. Our goal is to move 20% of our students into proficiency from below standard this year. Parents and community members have looked toward and will continue to seek an alternative educational experience for their children. We believe that parents that desire an alternative choice or feel that their children are not receiving the care, attention, and academic support they need are going to continue to enroll in our school. It is imperative that we continue to develop and establish a strong instructional framework to support students as they enter our school below grade level. We are continuing work on our strategic plan to meet the needs of our students and fulfill the mission of our school. Public Waldorf Education has proven to be highly effective over a five-year data cycle. To show the effects of Waldorf methodology when implemented with fidelity in a public charter school setting, we will continue to assess our students utilizing state and adopted assessment tools. Key Areas of Proficiency True to our Waldorf educational approach, our students are showing strong academic proficiency scores in Science and Math.

2015-2016 ISAT Science: 5th Grade achieved score of

2015-2016 ISAT Math: 5th Grade achieved score of % of students meeting or exceeding the Science Proficiency Standard

Academic Growth In our two years of operation, 82 students have taken the ISAT ELA both years in grades 3-6. 72 (89%) students showed an improved score over the two-year testing period. The average increase in score was 23.24%


6

In our two years of operation, 84 students have taken the ISAT Math both years in grades 3-6. 76 (90%) of our students showed an improved score over the two-year testing period. The average increase in score was 17.5%. We have shown that majority of students have improved their proficiency scores in ELA and Math in the following sub-populations (Exhibits G&H):

- Special Education - At Risk - Free/Reduced Lunch - Ethnicity – Non White

Major Challenges: Annual Performance Report Response – Academic Framework The 2015-2016 Annual Performance Report listed several areas in need of improvement. Syringa Mountain School has worked diligently to address these concerns and have improved upon and/or corrected areas that were identified within the report. Academic Framework: We received scores of on Measure 1a-3g Upon inception in 2014-2015, 71% of students enrolled in Syringa Mountain school entered below proficiency standards in ELA and 74% below proficiency in math. With ¾ of students already below grade level in ELA and Math, the key to improving scores and building students towards proficiency is time and strong educational framework for intervention and growth. We have full confidence that we will be able to help the majority of these students achieve proficiency standards by the end of their educational career at Syringa Mountain School. The Public Waldorf Education model projects student achievement will meet or exceed their peers in public education within five (5) years of a public Waldorf education experience. As we are entering our third year, we are still collecting data on student achievement along this timeline trajectory and are on track to meet and exceed these expectations in a five-year period. Academic Intervention Plan: We have implemented an active Response To Intervention (RTI) Program for both literacy and math. We have hired two paraprofessionals for literacy and math intervention that are in classrooms daily for small group and 1:1 work with students. We allocated 70 hours of paraprofessional support to intervention – with 1-2 hours daily allocated to our lowest performing grades: 3rd and 5th. Implementing Consistent Assessment Tools/Data Analysis Methods: The school adopted and implemented consistent formal and informal assessment tools. As ISAT and IRI are standardized for Idaho State, we began with this data and learned to analyze data to better understand performance proficiencies in our student body. We implemented additional methods for assessing students two times per year: AIMS Web for Math, SLOSSEN for Math and Reading, and DRA2 for Literacy. With this baseline data, we are able to better meet student needs and measure growth periodically throughout the year. Adoption of Literacy and Math Curriculum Frameworks: As an academic team, we are piloting frameworks for literacy development:


7

- The Daily 5 (Grades 1-3): Framework for structuring literacy time so students develop lifelong habits of reading, writing, and working independently.

- Strategies That Work (Grades 3-5): Resource for explicitly teach thinking strategies so that students become engaged, thoughtful, independent readers.

We will work to formally adopt these frameworks at the end of the year across grade levels. Teachers have begun to review math curriculum and frameworks. We have purchased manipulatives and math tools for student-driven, small group and independent games/activities that are individually chosen to meet specific student needs during math workshop periods. Teachers are explicitly teaching skills from the Common Core State Standards and then guiding and supporting students in their skill based practice. Results of Efforts In analyzing student data from each academic year and across grade level, we knew we needed to collect baseline data in the fall to accurately measure student growth in 2016-2017 to better understand individual student needs. We also wanted to closely monitor student growth. Teachers completed IRI, DRA2, AIMS Web, Slossen and Dibels assessments and successfully identified specific skill-development needs for each student. Teachers now track individual student growth in Assessment Binders and regularly adjust groupings and 1:1 support based on student proficiency gains and needs. As a school team, we set a goal to improve proficiency scores for Level 1 and Level 2 students using the data from 2015-2016 ISAT and 2016-2017 IRI:

- 20% move from Level 1/Level 2 to Level 3 (Proficiency) in ISAT Math and ELA. - 20% move from Level 1/Level 2 to Level 3 (Proficiency) in IRI. - All students at Level 1/Level 2 show growth in 2016-2017 school year.

We are already showing student proficiency growth in reading, writing, and math in the first 90 days of school (Exhibit I). Annual Performance Report Response – Mission-Specific Framework We received a 0 score on Measure 1-3 for not having administered the MET. As a newer school working to gain financial footing, the $10,000 price tag for the MET was out of our range. In response, we found a population survey that was less cost-inhibitive and was approved by the commission for us to administer – the Panorama Education Survey system. We administered this survey in May, 2016. We are preparing to administer again in January, 2017. We understand that upon our charter renewal, we will be administering the MET in September 2017 to be reported to the commission no later than October 1. Results of Panorama Survey: 23% of families surveyed responded. Measure 1: Are school teachers effective?

Are you satisfied with your child’s teacher?

67% Very Satisfied

33% Somewhat Satisfied

0% Not Satisfied


8

Measure 2: Is school engaging upper elementary students in learning?

Curriculum is Engaging

67% Very Satisfied


0% Not Satisfied Measure 3: Is school helping early elementary students feel happy about experience?

Happy about experience

78% Very Satisfied


0% Not Satisfied Measure 4: Does school climate reflect positive and supportive learning environment? This question was not asked in this capacity. The survey requested feedback on Safety and also on School communication. We will be sure to incorporate this question on our January 2017 survey. Parent involvement: We have strong parent involvement at our school. Families are encouraged to volunteer forty hours per year. When we were preparing to open, parents contributed hundreds of hours to painting and preparing our school to be a warm and welcoming environment for our children. To this day, our warm and inviting décor is the first characteristic of our school that visitors comment upon. One of the unique features of our school is a very active Parent Council that helps fundraise for the school annually. The Parent Council meets monthly with an average attendance of 15 parents. The Parent Council hosts 4-5 events annually that has raised over $150,000 for our school. In addition, each class has a Class Leader, a parent, that sends out weekly updates to the parent community for each grade. This year, the Parent Council developed a Welcoming Committee that welcomes and embraces new families that enter Syringa Mountain School to help them learn about opportunities to be involved, help them feel welcomed into our community, and provide any support or services that they may need as being new to the valley or to our specific community. Key Design Elements Listed in Performance Certificate Teacher Looping: Teachers have followed the looping model for two years and we are seeing phenomenal results with regards to rapport with peers and with teacher. 4 of our 6 grades teachers have stayed with their students for two years (now in our third). After having finished fall evaluations with teachers, our Head of School reported observing and being impressed upon with the rapport observed between peers and peer-teacher relationships. Teachers are reporting the ease of jumping into curriculum and learning that immediately occurs because classroom expectations are already established. Developmentally Appropriate Curriculum: Our public Waldorf curriculum follows a paralleled yet alternate trajectory for our children compared to a traditional public school. In the lower grades (K-2), our students focus primarily on oral language development, interpreting


9

knowledge in natural elements, and establishing community and intelligence with inter-personal relationships. As children enter the upper grades (3-6), the focus shifts towards written language, rigorous academic development, and leadership skills. Our charter states that we anticipate lower proficiency levels on state standardized tests in K-3, with our children meeting or exceeding expectations by 5th and 6th grades. Our data supports the model. Those students that have been in our school for the full two years and are now in the Fourth Grade are showing proficiency scores in multiple subjects and we anticipate to have solid data on their growth by end of 2016-2017. Scheduling Balance in Waldorf Methodology and Core Subjects: The complexity of balancing our public education accountability with our Waldorf foundation is an active conversation at Syringa. Teachers feel a strong sense of responsibility to both aspects of our curriculum. We meet regularly to discuss how to integrate CCSS into our Waldorf Main Lessons and arts-integrated Waldorf foundation. We have adjusted our scheduling to build core subject proficiency and mastery into our daily schedule while maintaining the efficacy of our Waldorf methodologies through subject-integration. Our teachers have begun the process of curriculum mapping and creating pacing calendars. Daily lesson plans include common core aligned mini-lessons with student-driven practice towards mastery. Balancing Academic Studies with Artistic and Social Activities: Along with aligning our curriculum to common core and adopting academic frameworks to support effective teaching methodologies, we expanded our music and garden (science) programs this year. Teachers are developing a complete curriculum map with common core and Waldorf benchmark alignments in each subject. The beginning of this year, teachers are required to review lesson plans and incorporate common core into core subject area teaching. We are implementing a five phase project to fully develop our curriculum:

1) Professional Development Week scheduled for this summer to align the Waldorf Curriculum Blocks to the Common Core State Standards

2) Create a Pacing Calendar and review the full alignment of all CCSS to curriculum 3) Adopt and/or create CCSS-Waldorf aligned rubrics for core subjects 4) On-going training for teachers to develop effective lesson plans and teaching practices 5) Regular review of data to adjust and align our curriculum and methodologies to student

needs Our artistic programming is thriving. Our music program now includes a 42-student orchestra, an eight student choir, and music lessons multiple times per week for 1st through 6th grades. We increased hours for Spanish and Handwork in order for teachers to be in the classroom more regularly and have more planning time to ensure academic rigor. These two programs have also moved to Project Based Learning with 2-3 projects required for each grade level per year. An exciting improvement to our programming in 2016-2017 has been expanding our farm and garden program to be year round, full time. Students are now able to move through the entire food cycle with their certified environmental sciences teacher. In the fall, students practice harvesting in our garden and prepare food for preservation during the colder months. Students enjoy a full cooking block in the winter that incorporates math and science components. In the spring, students are able to learn sustainability, composting, planting, and growing. We are excited to share this program in our community this year.


10

Our upper grades teachers developed a “Student Leadership Program” that is being rolled out in January for the beginning of second semester. Twelve students will enter the program in January with another twelve entering each semester. The program is designed for 5th and 6th grade students and will expand school-wide over a two-year period. Alignment with Idaho Common Core State Standards: An area in need of improvement, our teachers have focused heavily on developing their own unique alignment this year. Teachers are required to develop lesson plans weekly that are aligned to CCSS and to collect, analyze, and report data on student growth in proficiency. We are scheduled to fully dive in over the summer with a week-long work session and will implement a fully aligned curriculum framework in 2017-2018. Strong Parent Involvement: The Charter Commission noted feedback on parent and student satisfaction as an area of concern as we did not administer the MET survey. As stated above, we have strong parent involvement. Our Waldorf approach to community building and education puts emphasis on parent involvement. The Waldorf philosophy on community building and student achievement encourages teachers to have intimate relationships with parents and children and encourages teachers to involve families regularly in school activities. Our teachers regularly communicate with parents and have effectively requested parent involvement with strong support and response. This year, we are utilizing Track It Forward to create an interactive and easy way for families to sign up for volunteering at our school. It has helped teachers and staff identify volunteer needs and post them and allows parents better opportunity to volunteer for what they are capable. With a very active Parent Council, many fundraising events and volunteer opportunities are coordinated regularly. Safe Learning Environment: Syringa Mountain School was missing a framework for developing and fostering school community. We have implemented a school culture building initiative this 2016-2017 school year. We are developing common language and using consistent communication with students and families. There is a clear communication protocol and a tier system to help students work through behavior change and understanding consequences. In addition, the leadership team has created an employee manual outlining systems, protocols, and procedures for maintaining safety at Syringa. With these improvements, we have had less student altercations, less reports of student incidents, and less suspensions already this year. In 2015-2016, we had three suspensions in January 2016. In 2016-2017, we have had one. We have also improved our reporting process to more accurately track and report student discipline and safety issues at our school. Educational Program Elements in Our Charter Equal Emphasis on Academics, Arts, Social Development: Syringa Mountain School educators have truly developed curriculum that balances a rigorous arts-integrated approach to core subject teaching while maintaining the creative, hands-on, and social aspects of our foundation in Waldorf education. The Use of Movement & Arts in Curriculum: Waldorf methods inspire student volition, inquisition and creativity because classroom activities involve three key areas—the head (thinking), the heart (feeling) and the hands (willing). Music is a central component of our curriculum and is found in every classroom. Instrumental music practice begins in first grade,


11

with flutes and recorders that are stored in cases the students knit themselves; as early as third grade students learn an orchestral instrument, usually the violin. Oral to Written Literacy and Language Development: Waldorf education focuses on developing oral language first and moves into written language differently than traditional public education. As with all good teaching, we build from the known to the unknown. Students become increasingly capable of writing and reading as the first grade year progresses. Our first grade teacher has implemented a strong reading program utilizing the Daily 5 and our second and third grade teachers use the framework as well. Whole language work is done during Main Lesson and phonics/decoding practice occurs during literacy blocks in small group, independent, and partner activities. The literacy level of students begins to soar during third grade as students enter the reading to learn stage of their development. Our 3rd grade cohort has been well below grade level for two years and are struggling to reach proficiency level this year. Currently, % of students in third grade are at Intervention Level 1 based on results of the Fall 2016 IRI. We have implemented several intervention supports in the class and are beginning to see student improvement. Our 6th grade students are out-performing peers in science and math and are approaching majority at grade level for reading and writing. Our 6th grade cohort entered Syringa two years ago well below grade level in literacy development and have made significant gains in literacy over that time. We will have data to support teacher observations in January. Nature and Environmental Stewardship: Students participate in multiple field trips per year to learn about nature, the environment and sustainable practices. We partner with several organizations including the Sun Valley Center for the Arts, Hunger Coalition, The Wood River Land Trust, and The Nature Conservancy. Our students grow and build in our on-site garden and learn the importance of micro-farming in connection to healthy living practices. Responsibility for Community: Our children have responsibility to our school community through daily chores, clean up and relationship building and also learn responsibility to the greater community around us. Through our student leadership program, students participate in community service projects. We have several collaborations with other organizations in the valley to meet the needs of our community members and to give back with our resources and skills. We will be building a garden for a locally owned coffee shop in the spring and have promised 10% of our harvest to The Hunger Coalition to redistribute to families in need. Balancing Modern Preparedness with De-emphasizing Technology: We understand the delicate balance of introducing students to technology in age appropriate stages while also emphasizing the need to connect to each other and the world around us without technology. In 2016-2017, we created a technology framework for introducing and supporting technology needs alongside our mission of providing an arts-integrated curriculum:

- Kinder – no technology, natural play and nature-based learning is encouraged - 1st Grade – teacher driven listening of recorded story-telling, songs, and music - 2nd Grade – student-driven listening center is introduced for literacy - 3rd Grade – calculators and Chromebooks are introduced for students to practice basic

calculations and keyboarding


12

- 4th Grade – Chromebooks are used for transcribing student writing into electronic format

- 5th Grade – Chromebooks are used for research, the writing process, and to support learning in the classroom. In 2017-2018, classroom will have a Smart Board.

- 6th Grade – Chromebooks are used regularly. Classroom Smart Board is used by teacher and students. Emphasis is on college-readiness and technological responsibility and mastery.

Spanish Language Program: Spanish is taught twice weekly to all students in grades 1st – 6th grades. The program has been transitioned to project-based learning. Students build their language foundation over time and are able to articulate their understanding in cumulative project presentations three times per year. Festivals and Seasonal Studies: We have expanded our Waldorf curriculum to include a multitude of multi-cultural studies that reflect our local community and the world around us. Teachers have developed lesson blocks that emphasize and express the culture of civilizations throughout history and across the globe. Our curriculum spirals through the ages and across the world. Approach to Mathematics: In Public Waldorf education, instruction flows from the whole to parts. Our curriculum teaches math within context of thematic instructional blocks. In this way, mathematics is made meaningful and comes alive. Our teachers are engaging in curriculum alignment to the Common Core State Standards. Teachers have also implemented strong and consistent assessment strategies to better identify and approach individual student needs. Approach to Science: Our curriculum is rich in science. Science is integrated within our Waldorf curriculum and is also taught twice per week in our garden program. In addition, 5th and 6th grades have science instruction and lab one additional time per week, offering a science and math rich curriculum. This emphasis on science is proving to show high proficiency scores for our students. Our current 6th graders scored an average of Proficiency on the May 2016 ISAT (Exhibit D). Physical Education and Games: Students at Syringa Mountain School receive physical education through a variety of approaches within our curriculum. Explicit fundamental movement skills are an integral part of the Waldorf curriculum in the early grades. Balance, cross-body movement, and locomotor skill development are taught by Waldorf-trained classroom teachers. Students in grades 1-6 also participate in a physical education games class twice per week. Teachers follow state guidelines and Waldorf benchmarks for assessing and reviewing student growth and progress. Farm & Garden Support: We have raised approximately $15,000 to support our Farm & Garden program as we continue to lease our acre of land from the City of Hailey for $1 per year. We received permission from the city to house chickens and now have fresh eggs daily along with a wonderful expansion to our farm education program. In the spring, we will be adding a beehive on campus thanks to a generous grant received. School Lunch: We have successfully collaborated with the Wood River Sustainability Center to provide a Farm to School lunch program to more than 75 students daily. We also established a


13

free/reduced lunch option for families in need and are working with a consultant and Idaho State to be approved into the National Lunch Program. Our lunch program represents a successful school/community collaboration while providing a sustainable, locally grown, organic lunch program that is a model for our state. Music Program: Our music program is a unique signature of the school. We have successfully grown an orchestra program from 10 students to 42 in just two years. All of our students begin an instrument starting in the first grade and are introduced to string instruments in third. This has been a fantastic benefit to our community and one that parents cite as a reason for joining our community.

Is the School Organizationally Sound and Compliant with Applicable Laws & Regulations?

Yes, the school is organizationally sound and compliant with applicable laws and regulations. We have diligently addressed concerns by the Charter Commission and have established processes, systems, and protocols to ensure long-term compliance. Annual Performance Report Response – Operational Framework Measure 1b: Is the school complying with applicable education requirements: Our classroom teachers have implemented CCSS in our classrooms and assessment process. Teachers are required to incorporate CCSS into their daily literacy, math and science activities and several professional development sessions have been spent on reviewing the Common Core State Standards and training on how to implement Common Core into existing curriculum blocks. We will continue to work on curriculum mapping and school-wide implementation of a true CCSS/Waldorf aligned spiraling of our curriculum. Measure 1d: Is the school protecting the rights of English Language Learner (ELL) students? Yes. We have implemented the program, Imagine Learning English for our four ELL students. In addition, we have two certified ESL teachers on staff. ELL students are receiving additional language support and lessons in the classrooms and are in daily phonics groups (Reading Reform, Linda Moon Bell). We have appointed a test coordinator to administer WIDA and Access 2.0. The measures we have put in place to support and promote language development in our school ensures all students will grow in language proficiency this year. Measure 5a: Is the school complying with facilities and transportation requirements? Syringa Mountain School provides all students with Mountain Rides public transportation passes annually. In addition, we have purchased two 15-passenger vans for field trips and special education service transportation. For the 2017-2018 school year, we will be adding a state approved school bus to be able to provide a morning and evening bus route for those living in Blaine County between Bellevue and Ketchum. Measure 6a: Is the school complying with all other obligations? Syringa Mountain School has posted the 2014-2015 Annual Performance Report on our website. In addition, our Continuous Improvement Plan has been improved upon and a version is being designed for our website. A beginning to this publication is now available to the public and the Board of Directors are working on finalizing the measurement metrics for publishing to the public. We have retained a consultant for Strategic Planning and Systematic School Improvement for the 16-17 school year. Financial reporting has consistently been updated on our website monthly and we are in full compliance.


14

Student Demographics by Comparison to State and Surrounding District According to the 2015-2016 Annual Performance Report, there is a significant differential between our student demographics and those of the surrounding district (Exhibit J). We have established a committee to welcome and increase our student enrollment in the following demographics:

Non-White and LEP Students: Last year, we had 10.53% student population. In 2016-2017, we currently have 10.2% enrolled. Our goal is to increase our diversity to 20% for 2017-2018 to better reflect the percentage in our valley. We are publishing materials in Spanish for enrollment for 2017-2018 and are connecting our current families with those prospective families. We are holding open houses and holding events in the community to express our desire to increase enrollment diversity and encourage families to learn more and register.

Special Needs Students: Our Special Education population has doubled in two years. Last year, approximately 5.26% of our students were Special Needs. This year 12% of our student population are special needs students. We anticipate this population to continue to grow as families learn and understand the benefits of our approach to education to students in need of individualized instruction and adaptive methods for learning.

Free & Reduced Lunch Students: We remain under-representing students in the free and reduced lunch sub-group demographically. There is a misconception in the community that we are not a free, public school. We are making a concerted effort to reach out to communities that are under-served by our school and are developing strategies to encourage and welcome families to become aware and understanding of our school as a free school of choice in the valley.

We anticipate an increase of 10% or more in our diversity with the concerted effort of the Board of Directors, our Enrollment Committee and our new Leadership Team. Currently, our academic performance indicators for our students show no emphasis on one sub-group over another. We currently have majority of our students below grade level in literacy and math with no correlation to demographics (Exhibits G & H). Adding transportation in 2017-2018, publications in Spanish for the upcoming school year, and concerted efforts in outreach to sub-group populations, I believe interest by the Hispanic and free/reduced lunch populations will increase. In addition, we are working on becoming an ICCP approved school to provide free and reduced rates for after school care to families that qualify. Organizational Capacity We have hired a new administrator that has created structure and framework for clearly defined expectations and delineated roles for staff, administration, and board members. We developed and published an Employee Manual with processes, procedures, protocols, forms, and guidelines for employees to use as reference. Due to the improvements in systems and processes, staff concerns and incidences of unaccountability have decreased.


15

Board Oversight and Governance The Board is transitioning from a “founding” board to a “working” board. Several board member’s terms have expired or transitioned to new board members. The board is in the process of retaining a consultant for board mentorship and training. Several new board members are making concerted efforts to develop committees and create campaigns to meet the school’s needs. The board has been reviewing policies monthly and are actively establishing processes and protocols to effectively address improvement goals moving forward. School Leadership The board has hired a new school leader for the 2016-2017 school year and beyond. A challenge has been lack of retention of administration over the last two years and we are looking forward to developing and instilling stability over several years. The new administrator has also hired a full time secretary to help create a foundation of support for staff, families, and students. The leader has taken initiative to engage in the process of systematic school improvement, teacher effectiveness coaching, and adopting curriculum/assessment frameworks. The school leader has a one year, 3-year, and 5-year long term plan for improving student proficiency, school culture, and long-term stability. School Safety The administration teams over a three-year period of operation have created systems, processes, and protocols to operate a safe school. We received a federal grant for Safe Schools in the 2015-2016 school year and improved our interior door safety. We have also received the grant in the 2016-2017 school year and will be adding exterior door safety to the building. We have had several meetings this year with the Hailey Police Department and Hailey Fire Department to identify areas in need of improvement and to maintain safety compliance. School culture and accountability development has been a priority in the 2016-2017 school year. We are developing common language associated with student expectations and accountability and share the focus with our students for 1) being safe and 2) learning daily. Given the implementation of a positive school culture program and clear expectations consistently communicated to students across grade level and as a student body, we have seen less incidences and more engagement by students. In addition, we are finding a more cohesive, calm, and engaging learning environment. We have continued with our CARE Team referral process to identify and support students in need. This year, we have added a support component for students in need of extra emotional or behavioral support. Each grade teacher has identified students in need of emotional/behavioral support and these students meet with a social support group weekly. We have created a communicative and collaborative professional environment to pool our resources, meet student needs, and consistently support students towards academic and emotional/social success. Stakeholder Satisfaction We have had approximately thirty new families enroll in Syringa Mountain School annually in 2015-2016 and 2016-2017. We anticipate, with our concerted efforts to increase enrollment and to add an additional kindergarten in the upcoming school year, we will increase enrollment by sixty students in 2017-2018.


16

Another concerted effort we have made is to increase the interest of stakeholders in our community. During our first annual fall fundraiser, 72% of donations were from new donors. We have also increased efforts to collaborate and partner with other organizations in the valley. This year, we have discussed partnering for grant opportunities for After School Program and adult education opportunities. Legislatures and community businesses have been encouraged to learn more about us and visit our school. We have opened our doors to organizations in need of meeting space and are working towards becoming a community center in the valley. We did not administer the MET survey due to the cost associated with licensing. We, instead, were approved to administer an alternative, the Panorama Ed survey. Results of the survey show that 70% of our students feel a sense of belonging in school. 97% of our students reported feeling as though they learn from their teachers.

Is the School a Fiscally Sound, Viable Organization?

The Board has completed a 5-year feasibility study as it continues to work on developing a fiscally sound and viable long-term financial plan. Our goal is to decrease the dependency on fundraising to only 15% of the budget and to increase enrollment significantly over the next three years. The board also understands the need to reduce the budget until financial stability is achieved. The board is working to secure a USDA loan to purchase the building and property to reduce monthly cost, secure the value of our investment, and earn equity over time. The board is working to secure a USDA loan to purchase the building and property to reduce annual facilities expenses. The purchase of the building is anticipated to be finalized in the second quarter of 2017. The purchase of the building will stabilize the facility expense over the next thirty years as well as provide funding for upgrades to the facilities in the amount of $400,000, which allows for the expansion of the school into the upstairs storage area. This will add an additional three classrooms, a library, two resource rooms and an orchestra assembly. With the anticipated adjustment of the facilities expense, we anticipate saving $275,000 over a ten-year period. Compounded with the capital expansion investment to the upstairs space, in ten years with 250 students in the school, the facilities expense will be only $371 per student per year. Using the current funding per student from the state of $6,300 per student, the facility expense will be only 5.9% of the amounts received in state and federal funding. With the finalization of purchase, Syringa Mountain School will have an estimated equity in the real estate of $1.2 million dollars. The board recognizes that facilities are the most challenging expense for most charter schools in Idaho and stabilizing our facilities ensures long-term viability for the school and the board believes that it is heading towards well on track other charter school piers. Current Financial Status and Long-Term Plan The Board is reviewing the current budget to better meet our short-term financial constraints. In the 2016-2017 budget, the board has reduced expenses by approximately $250,000. We will continue to be fiscally conservative as we work towards our fundraising goal for this year. We have begun work on our 2017-2018 budget to better reflect the constraints of our current model and to reflect a dependency on fundraising of no more than 15% of the total annual budget. The school faces a financial shortfall twice in the school year and the board of directors has developed fundraising campaigns to meet these shortfalls. To date, we have raised over


17

$110,000 of our $300,000 goal. We have ensured through fundraising that our educational quality has not been compromised. The Board completed a 5-year feasibility study for growth and financial stability. It is currently under review by the board for edits and approval. The feasibility study focuses on increasing enrollment, funds contributed to capital reserve, and reduction of dependency on fundraising. The study analyzing current cash flow projects and adjusts long-term financial planning to align with our need to become financially sustainable. The feasibility study will be approved in January 2017 and parts of the study improvements have already begun to be implemented. Annual Performance Report Response – Financial Framework Measure 1c: Enrollment variance – Enrollment variance is 93% in the most recent year We have had a variance in student retention and attrition in our first two years of operation. Our newly hired school administrator collected data on the families that unenrolled or did not enroll their students at Syringa in the 2016-2017 school year. The findings listed three main reasons:

1. Transportation needs were not fulfilled by the school. SMS has purchased two 15-passenger vans that are being utilized currently and will be adding a state approved school bus and bus route in the 2017-2017 school year.

2. Student proficiency scores were a concern. Students entered SMS below grade level. A concerted effort and intervention plan has been put in place and we are seeing significant gains.

3. Moving from a private Waldorf school to a public charter school guided by the core principles of Waldorf education caused a cohort of original families to return to private education. SMS has established a strong and proactive group of families that believe in the mission and vision of the school. As in all transitions, some of the core families that moved from the original Mountain School to our public charter school did not maintain enrollment. Annually, we have increased our enrollment by the number of families that have chosen to find other options. This coming year, we believe we will find ourselves with a stable community and grow our foundation in Kindergarten to begin double-tracking our grades.

We have implemented a strong campaign to increase enrollment and retain current families. The Parent Council has been a vital resource in understanding the concerns and expectations of families. The new school leader attends these meetings and is able to connect to families on a regular basis in having moved her office to the main floor of the school. Families are feeling welcomed and in communication with the school on a regular basis through school newsletters, classroom updates, and invitations to events throughout the year. This year, we implemented a volunteer database system that makes it easier to receive notifications of help needed and to sign up for areas that are of most interest or match a volunteer’s skillset. At the beginning of the year, we sent out a volunteer survey and received 37 back (27%). This year, we have seen an increase in volunteerism and currently have reported volunteer hours are 498.5 via our online tracker. Additionally, we have had 585 hours of volunteering tracked in our visitor sign in at the front desk. Our goal for total hours this year is


18

7,800 hours. We hope that encouraging and welcoming families to be part of our school will help them feel at home, welcome, and retained. The board of directors and school administrator understand the importance of student and parent satisfaction. As part of our Strategic Planning and Continuous School Improvement Plan, we are implementing satisfaction measurements and will use the Panorama survey this year and MET survey next year to survey our community twice per year to adjust our planning to meet the expectations and needs of our families. Measure 2a: Total Margin: Net income divided by Total Revenue AND Aggregate Total Margin: Total 3-year net income divided by Total 3-year Revenues Our first year operational margin was negative. As a startup, initial capital improvement and operational costs were higher than our allocated income from state and federal sources. In our second year, we understood the financial gap in our budget and increased our fundraising efforts to meet the needs of our school’s operating cost. We ended the year with a positive bank account balance. In our third year, we understand the importance of gaining financial stability, increasing our capital improvement and reserve funds, and reducing expenses to meet our revenues.

If Renewed, What is the School’s Plan for Our Next Performance Certificate Term?

In our third year, this is an exciting time for Syringa Mountain School. With a core team of collaborative teachers, an active board, and a strong school leader, we have developed a clear plan of action for our next five years. We have identified four long-term goals for fulfilling our mission and charter and are in the process of updating and focusing our strategic plan to be more effective (Exhibit L): Overview of Strategic Plan

1. CREATIVITY: Foster creativity and imaginative thinking, creativity and good judgement

We will continue to ensure our school offers an arts-integrated curriculum guided by the core principles of Waldorf education. We will continue to emphasize the arts, movement, and whole-child development. We will expand our Farm & Garden, Spanish, Handwork, and Music programs over time as cornerstones to developing creativity and imaginative thinking. Creativity and connectivity to the world around us is a key component of fulfilling our charter’s mission.

2. ACTIVE LEARNING: Teach children to engage in experiential learning, and hold responsibility for individual development and self-reliance.

Students who actively own their development and learning and are engaged in the learning process are far more successful in their adult lives. Our children focus on project-based activities that provide an experiential opportunity to engage and interact with information while skill-building. Students learn through trial and error, responsibility for developing a concept into a final product, and establish a high level of self-reliance and self-efficacy.


19

3. PROFICIENCY: Promote development of each child intellectually, physically, emotionally, and in social and creative capacities to build resilience, self-efficacy, and life-long learning.

As a public Waldorf charter school, our students are developing on a dual-track of benchmarks: our Waldorf developmental benchmarks and the Common Core State Standards benchmarks. Students develop intellectually, physically, and emotionally through curriculum that integrates the arts and relationship building with skill-based proficiency benchmarks. Our whole-child curriculum provides a platform for understanding self and the world while developing proficiency in academics. Through trial and error, testing will through failure and success, and promoting creative learning, our children develop a life-long love of learning.

4. ECO-LITERATE LEADERSHIP: Inspire children to live engaged and successful lives, prepared to meet the demands of their world as educated and responsible human beings.

Sustainability is a foundational characteristic of our school. Students learn responsibility and ownership for lowering our negative impact on Earth and increasing our ability for sustainable living. Starting in Kindergarten, students learn to be responsible for re-usable materials and learn to garden, cook, and compost. We have developed a framework for a student leadership component to eco-literacy and are excited to implement this program in January 2017. Our curriculum and pedagogy fosters the development of student leaders and we will be further promoting this aspect of our curriculum in leadership opportunities both on campus and in the great community. The goal of adding this component to our programming is to help students feel engaged and responsible while developing a strong sense of self-efficacy and confidence in leadership.

Plans and Timeline for Our Future We have identified and outlined three major improvement goals for our next five years:

1. Increase Student Achievement Scores: 20% of students identified as intervention level 1 or 2 will improve scores to reach proficiency in the 2016-2017 school year. 75% of students will reach proficiency in ELA and Math in grades 3-6 by 2021. 60% of students will reach proficiency in ELA and Math in grades 1-2 by 2021. All students will show increases in proficiency annually.

2. Create Financial Stability Through Enrollment: 20 additional students will enter SMS in the 2017-2018 school year. We will double track grades starting in 2017. We will ensure student retention through goals identified. Our goal is to increase enrollment 15% annually for the next five years. We will reach building capacity in 2021 at 250 students.

3. Improve Board Governance and Retain Strong School Leadership: The board has

engaged in board training and education. In addition, the board acknowledges that they are a new board with several new members and little to no experience serving on a board prior to joining the Syringa Mountain School board. The board understands they


20

are in need of consulting and guidance. In 2017, the board will retain services to help guide and improve governance. The board is also actively seeking new membership that will create diversity on the board beyond parents from our community and to help fulfill vacancies with those in the community with expertise in the areas needed. Secondly, having three different school administrators over a three-year period has put strain on the operations of the school. The leadership team in collaboration with the board are creating a long-term plan for strong school leadership and have already implemented the first phase of improvements to create stability, accountability, and school-wide initiatives.

Over the next five-year period, we will have an educated and experienced board, school operations and instructional practices that support student achievement, and enrollment to capacity that supports our school into the future. Expansion, Replication, and Programmatic Change We do not anticipate taking on any large projects for expansion, replication or programmatic change. We will continue to focus on our improvement and completion needs for goals identified within this report. We will be expanding our school footprint by completing the construction of the upstairs space but only in the context of meeting our enrollment and growth projections over time. We will not be replicating our efforts elsewhere, rather, we will be focusing on creating our framework successfully and in a way that we will be a model to other public Waldorf schools in the future. Waldorf is the foundation of our school and Common Core is the foundation of our accountability. The fulfillment of our charter and our mission will continue to be at the forefront of our efforts. Our programming will remain the same although curriculum development and alignment of Waldorf and Common Core are a priority for our school over the next three to five years. Sharing Our Successes Our school leader has been an active contributor in the educational world throughout her career. Sharing best practices, research, and data is what promotes the success of all students across our educational platform in this country. Having already reached out to several public Waldorf leaders and connecting to educators and leaders in Blaine County and beyond, the goal is to transparently share data and knowledge base to benefit education as a whole. Our school leader is initiating a platform development through the Alliance for Public Waldorf Schools to openly share information, data, and partnership opportunities within the Public Waldorf School network. We are hoping that other schools will sign up and agree to share assessment data, curriculum alignments and maps, and other tools that would benefit schools in our arena. We have also engaged in developing and implementing an entirely new website platform this year. It is cleaner, more engaging, and holds much more information than in the past. We have added school data and assessment data to the website with phase two planned for showing student growth beginning in the 2017-2018 school year complete with graphs and benchmark information for both Waldorf and Common Core State Assessments.


21

We will continue to be actively involved in public Waldorf and public education conferences including those at the state level. Our school leader has also submitted to present this coming year at the Idaho State Federal Programs Conference. Being part of the educational discussion and community is a key component of being a successful school and helping other schools reach success. We are looking forward to sharing our success stories often and with whomever will listen and holding a high level of transparency both on our website and within our school community to disseminate information, strategies, curriculum, data, and successes with the public.


22

Exhibits Exhibit A Enrollment:

2014 2015 2016

Enrollment 133 134 137 Kinder 27 13 20 1st 22 23 16 2nd 20 19 25 3rd 24 19 16 4th 18 25 19 5th 22 23 25 6th 0 12 16

Enrollment Actuals and Projection:

Y14-15 Y15-16 Y16-17 Y17-18 Y18-19 Y19-20 Y20-21

122 133 139 160 185 210 242 Exhibit B Student Demographics:

Limited English


23

Exhibit C Students Proficiency Upon Entering Syringa:

2014-2015 Students Entering Syringa Below Grade Level ELA

2014-2015 Students Entering Syringa Below Grade Level MATH

Exhibit D Student ISAT Achievement Analysis by Grade:

ISAT ELA 3rd Grade 4th Grade 5th Grade 6th Grade

Benchmark: 2432 Proficient

(3)

Benchmark: 2473 Proficient (3)



2015-2016 2014-2015

ISAT MATH 3rd Grade 4th Grade 5th Grade 6th Grade

Benchmark: Proficient (3)




2015-2016

2014-2015

ISAT SCIENCE

5th Grade

Benchmark: 206-215 Proficient (3)

2015-2016

2014-2015 Exhibit E Idaho Reading Indicator (Grades K-3):

2016-2017 IRI Data for Response to Intervention (RTI): K 1 2 3 TOTAL

# of Students at Intervention Level 1

# of Students at Intervention Level 2

# of Students at Level 3 (Proficient)

# of Students at Response to Intervention for Literacy


24

Exhibit F Student Growth Data for ISAT ELA & MATH:

2014 - 2016 Growth ISAT ELA

students reduced score 89% of students improved

students increased score 23 average increase in points

TOTAL STUDENTS 2014-2016 Growth ISAT MATH

students reduced score 90% of students improved

students increased score 17 average increase in points

TOTAL STUDENTS Exhibit G Student Achievement Analysis by Sub-Group ISAT ELA:

2014-2016 Growth ISAT ELA Special Education

students reduced score students increased score

average increase

At Risk

students reduced score students increased score average increase

Free/Reduced Lunch

students reduced score students increased score average increase

Ethnicity – Non White students reduced score students increased score average increase


25

Exhibit H Student Achievement Analysis by Sub-Group ISAT MATH:

2014-2016 Growth ISAT MATH

Special Education

students reduced score

students increased score

average increase

At Risk



average increase

Ethnicity - Non White



average increase

Free/Reduced Lunch

student reduced score

student increased score

average increase Exhibit I Student Growth Over First 90 Days of School

4th Grade AIMS WEB-MATH

6th Grade AIMS WEB-MATH

5th Grade DIBELS Fluency - READING

September 2016 September 2016 September 2016

December 2016 December 2016 December 2016

Exhibit J

2015-2016 Our School Surrounding District State Non-White 10.53% 43.33% 23.84% Limited English Proficiency

3.01% 33.12% 8.61%

Special Needs 5.26% 10.43% 9.76%

Free/Reduced Lunch 33.83% 41.37% 47.27%


26

Exhibit K

2016-2017 Budget Reduction Comparison

**TOTAL 2015-2016 BUDGET EXPENDITURES (ALL FUNDS) 1,814,518

**TOTAL 2016-2017 BUDGET EXPENDITURES (ALL FUNDS) 1,564,409

REDUCTION AMOUNT: -250,109

Exhibit L


Idaho Public Charter School Commission 304 North 8th Street, Room 242 Boise, Idaho 83702 Phone: (208) 332-1561 chartercommission.idaho.gov Alan Reed, Chairman Tamara Baysinger, Director

IDAHO PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL COMMISSION

PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL RENEWAL

GUIDANCE & APPLICATION

SMS CHARTER RENEWAL EXHIBIT N N.1

CHARTER SCHOOL RENEWAL GUIDANCE 2

Introduction Idaho statute requires that all public charter schools in the state be periodically reviewed by their authorizer for the purpose of determining whether or not the charter should continue operations. New schools are initially approved for three year terms, and may be renewed for successive five year terms thereafter.

The Public Charter School Commission (PCSC) seeks to make the renewal process as meaningful, transparent, and collaborative as possible. We encourage schools to review this guide thoroughly, taking care to meet deadlines and complete the renewal application accurately. We also encourage schools to start the process early and maintain communication with PCSC staff throughout.

The renewal process offers an opportunity for you, as a school, to reflect on your outcomes during your current performance certificate term; make an evidence-based case that your school represents a prudent use of student time and taxpayer funds; and present a compelling plan for your school’s future.

The PCSC will make renewal decisions in accordance with Idaho statute, ultimately basing its decision on each school’s outcomes with regard to the requirements and standards established in the performance certificate and framework.

We thank you for your thoughtful engagement in this rigorous but important process, and invite an atmosphere of honest communication and commitment to quality as we all work toward the goal of upholding Idaho’s charter school movement and the students it serves.



Overview The renewal process outlined in Idaho statute includes several deadlines and requirements of both authorizers and schools. This guide is intended to assist you in understanding these requirements and fulfilling your school’s responsibilities in a timely and effective fashion. It will also explain the PCSC’s role in the process, including procedures and possible outcomes.

Your charter, performance certificate, and framework contain a description of the school you have committed to provide for your community. The framework details academic, mission-specific, operational, and financial standards against which your outcomes are evaluated on an annual basis. These outcomes are provided to you by the PCSC in annual performance reports and indicate whether your school has exceeded, met, failed to meet, or fallen far below the standard for each measure.

Throughout the majority of your performance certificate term, very few (if any) sanctions are imposed even if your school’s outcomes are not ideal. Instead, annual performance reports serve as guideposts to help shape your strategic planning as you celebrate your strengths and seek to improve upon any shortcomings.

During the renewal process, the PCSC will carefully evaluate your school, including implementation of your stated mission and key design elements, as well as academic, mission-specific, operational, and financial outcomes relative to the standards established in the framework. We will examine the trajectory of your school throughout the performance certificate term, noting changes over time as well as the larger context in which they have occurred.

The renewal process includes opportunities for you to address the outcomes described in your annual reports, provide contextual detail and additional evidence, and describe improvements undertaken by your school. These opportunities include optional submission of auxiliary data, a site visit by a pre-renewal review team, completion of a renewal application, and a public hearing.

The renewal application included with this guidance document is intended to answer the following questions:

1. Is the school an academic success? 2. Is the school organizationally sound and compliant with applicable laws and regulations? 3. Is the school a fiscally sound, viable organization? 4. If renewed, what is the school’s plan for its next performance certificate term?

The process allows you to make your best case for renewal by providing additional information and offering explanations for any performance issues. Because the renewal timeline is tight, we encourage you to begin working to address any concerns identified in your annual reports as soon as possible.

Ultimately, there are several possible outcomes of the renewal process:

1. The PCSC may renew your charter for a new, 5-year term. 2. The PCSC may conditionally renew your charter for a new, 5-year term. If the specific, written

conditions established by the PCSC are not met on the timeline specified, the PCSC may proceed with revocation of the charter prior to the end of the term.

3. The PCSC may non-renew your charter. Non-renewal obliges a school to permanently close at the end of the school year during which the non-renewal decision is made. In the event of a non-renewal decision, an appeal process is available.

4. Your school may voluntarily relinquish its charter. If this decision is made, the PCSC strongly encourages schools to close at the end of the school year, rather than mid-year, whenever possible.



Renewal Process The PCSC endeavors to conduct a rigorous, transparent renewal decision process that leads to merit-based decisions in accordance with Idaho statute and the National Association of Charter School Authorizers (NACSA) Principles and Standards for Quality Charter School Authorizing. This standard is embedded in the performance certificate and framework signed by each school. In accordance with statute, the performance certificate, PCSC policy, and best practices in authorizing, the PCSC will base its renewal decisions on each school’s existing performance record.

Although the formal renewal process described in Idaho statute begins in fall of the renewal year, several stages lead up to the process:

Performance Certificate and Framework Adoption -- Your school’s performance certificate and framework were adopted and signed by both your board chair and the PCSC’s chair at the beginning of the certificate term. The adoption process included multiple conversations between PCSC staff and school leadership, during which the certificate and framework were reviewed and customized to your school. The certificate and framework specify the academic, mission-specific, operational, and financial performance expectations to which both parties have agreed.

Non-Renewal Years -- Throughout your performance certificate term, your school received annual performance reports advising you of your outcomes relative to the performance expectations described in the performance framework. Each year, you had an opportunity to review a draft and provide documented responses in advance of the final report’s publication. School leadership was encouraged to work toward resolution of any shortcomings identified in the annual reports.

Pre-Renewal Year -- This stage comprises the school year prior to the one in which a renewal or non-renewal decision will be made. During this stage, PCSC staff meets with school leadership to discuss any concerns that may impact the upcoming renewal decision. As a school, you are invited (though not required) to submit auxiliary performance data to support your case for renewal.

Renewal Year -- This stage comprises the school year in which a renewal or non-renewal decision will be made. Early in the renewal year, an evaluation team will make a site visit to the school. Between November 15 and March 15 of the renewal year, the PCSC and school will exchange final performance documentation on a strict timeline. Your school’s board is ultimately responsible for the school’s participation in the renewal process, including timely submission of a thorough and accurate renewal application.



Renewal Timeline Below is a timeline of the renewal process, including deadlines, beginning in the year preceding the renewal year and continuing through the PCSC’s final decision. Deadlines for schools are shown in green.

Pre-Renewal Year

PCSC staff meets with school leadership to introduce the renewal process and discuss any concerns regarding school outcomes.

July 15 Fall of Renewal Year

Schools may submit auxiliary performance data (optional). Evaluation team makes a site visit to the school. School board members, administration, and business management personnel should plan to participate.

November 15 PCSC issues performance reports to all renewal-year schools.

PCSC issues renewal application and guidance to all renewal-year schools.

December 15 Renewal-year schools submit completed renewal applications to PCSC. February PCSC Regular Meeting

Public hearings are held to consider evidence regarding renewal year schools.

Within 7 days of the February PCSC Regular Meeting

Schools may submit written closing arguments to PCSC office (optional).

By March 15 PCSC holds special meeting for the purpose of making final renewal or non-renewal determinations.

Several of the deadlines above are statutory, and all are critical to ensuring a smooth renewal process during which both parties have an opportunity to review and respond to all relevant documentation. For this reason, PCSC policy provides that “schools that fail to submit their completed renewal application by the statutory deadline may be recommended for non-renewal.”

Schools are encouraged to review this timeline frequently and contact PCSC staff with any questions.

Auxiliary Performance Data Submission The renewal process described above includes an optional opportunity for you to submit auxiliary performance data of which the PCSC may not otherwise be aware. We invite you to use this opportunity to make your case for renewal by providing academic, mission-specific, operational, or financial information that is not already captured by the performance framework.

The auxiliary performance data submission deadline is July 15, and auxiliary data must be submitted using the Auxiliary Performance Data Submission Form. Be sure to follow the instructions carefully in order to ensure that your data is presented in a meaningful and useable manner. Remember to focus on measurable, objective evidence rather than on anecdote.

We strongly encourage you to take advantage of this voluntary submission in order to support claims about your school’s outcomes. For example, if you believe that your SAT results are reflective of a population that is highly mobile, you could consider submitting the following:



SAT results for all your students who took the test; The same data parsed by the length of time students have been continuously enrolled at your

school prior to taking the test; and Analysis of the above data differentiating results of students who have been enrolled for a

significant period from those of students who enrolled more recently.

As another example, perhaps you believe your ISAT proficiency rates reflect a population of students who were already struggling academically when they enrolled at your school. You could consider submitting the following:

Student-level growth data (using a standardized assessment) for all your students; The same data parsed by how close to grade level students were when they entered your school;

and Analysis of the above data demonstrating the rate of growth for students who enrolled below,

at, and above grade level.

As a third example, perhaps you believe your four-year cohort graduation rate is reflective of a population that includes many students who were already behind their cohorts when they enrolled at your school. You could consider submitting the following:

4 year, 5 year, and 6+ year cohort graduation rates; Student-level data demonstrating which of your students graduated with which cohorts (4 year,

5 year, 6+ year); Student-level data demonstrating whether/how far behind cohort those graduates were when

they enrolled at your school; and Analysis of the above data demonstrating the rate at which students who enrolled with or behind

their cohorts progressed through graduation from your school.

The Auxiliary Performance Data Submission Form will help you organize your supporting documentation and explain the purpose for which you are submitting it. We will provide a secure file transfer site to ensure that individually-identifiable student information is protected.

Renewal Application Below is a checklist to guide you through the development of your renewal application. The checklist is followed by guidance to assist you with development of the application narrative and exhibits.

Title Page

Please provide a title page with the title “Application for Charter Renewal.” Include the following information:

School Name School Address Contact Information for Renewal Process Contact Person

Name Title Phone E-mail Mailing Address

Date of Application Approval by School Board Application Submission Date



Table of Contents

Please provide a clear and comprehensive table of contents including, for all major sections and exhibits:

Page Numbers Hyperlinks or Electronic Bookmarks

Executive Summary

Please provide an executive summary, limited to two (2) pages in length (no less than 11-point font, standard 1-inch margins), providing a concise and concrete overview of the renewal application, including:

Summary of the school’s mission and key design elements, or defining characteristics Summary of major successes and challenges during the current performance certificate term Summary of the school’s responses to the four, central questions addressed in the application Signatures of your school’s board chair and administrator

Application Narrative

Please provide an application narrative, limited to twenty-five (25) pages in length (no less than 11-point font, standard 1-inch margins) addressing the four, central questions below:

Is the school an academic success? Is the school organizationally sound and compliant with applicable laws and regulations? Is the school a fiscally sound, viable organization? If renewed, what is the school’s plan for its next performance certificate term?

Your responses to the first three questions should focus on credible evidence of the school’s past performance outcomes and current status. Only the answer to question four should focus on plans for the future. Below you will find additional guidance to provide direction as you craft your response to each question.

Exhibits

Please attach any exhibits necessary to support your application narrative. All exhibits should:

Be immediately relevant to evidence and analysis presented in your renewal performance report. (Any other information should already have been submitted by the optional July 15 auxiliary performance data submission deadline.)

Provide clear and objective evidence, rather than anecdotal information, to clarify or correct the contents of the renewal performance report.

Be in Word or Excel format. Be referred to using an exhibit number in the relevant portion of the table of contents and

application narrative. Be clearly labeled (both file name and within the document) with the school name and exhibit

number.



Application Narrative Guidance The guidance below is intended to assist you with development of your renewal application narrative. Please review it carefully to ensure that your narrative is complete. Remember to use your renewal performance report as a guide for your response.

1. Is the school an academic success?

Students’ academic success is the most important aspect of your school’s efficacy, and it represents the PCSC’s highest priority when evaluating schools for renewal. This portion of your application narrative should provide an honest, detailed, and data-driven discussion of your school’s academic outcomes over the performance certificate term.

Be sure to address the key areas of proficiency, growth, and (in the case of high schools), college and career readiness. Include a discussion of both overall and sub-population achievement (Special Education, Free & Reduced Lunch, Non-White, and Limited English Proficiency). It may also be appropriate to consider other groups, such as at-risk students or students who have been continuously enrolled at your school for a certain period.

Also discuss your results on the mission-specific section of the framework, if applicable. The mission-specific measures reflect factors that your board self-identified as important for evaluation of the school. If your annual performance reports reflect weakness in any of these areas, please discuss how your school has responded to the identified shortcomings, focusing particularly on the documented impact of that response.

We invite explanation regarding the context of challenges faced by the school and discussion of how the school has adapted to meet them. Throughout this section, remember to focus primarily on outcomes, that is, the results of your efforts rather than the details of the efforts themselves.

You should also address the degree to which your school fulfills the promises made in your charter. Consider the key design elements listed in your performance certificate, as well as the educational program your charter describes. Does reality reflect the commitments made in your charter and performance certificate? Are you actually providing to your community the educational option and results that you described in your charter (as amended, if applicable)?

2. Is the school organizationally sound and compliant with applicable laws and regulations?

This portion of your narrative should address any concerns noted in the operational section of your annual performance reports. Include a description of actions you have taken to correct any outstanding issues, and focus on the outcomes of those actions.

Include a discussion of your school’s student demographics by comparison to the state and surrounding district. If there are discrepancies, explain why you believe this is the case, any measures you have taken to ensure that all students feel welcome to enroll. Address the impact of your student demographics, whether they reflect diversity of lack thereof, on your academic outcomes.

It is also appropriate to discuss in this section any issues regarding topics such as organizational capacity, board oversight and governance, school leadership, school safety, and stakeholder satisfaction. Remember to focus on demonstrable evidence rather than anecdote.

3. Is the school a fiscally sound, viable organization?

This portion of your narrative should describe the school’s financial status, both at present and over the long term. Any concerns noted in the financial section of your annual performance reports should be addressed. You should also discuss any concerns about independent fiscal audit findings,



internal controls, and underenrollment. Be sure to explain the reasons the concerns came about, the actions you have taken to address them, and the especially outcomes of those actions.

If your school faces unresolved financial uncertainty, it is appropriate to discuss how you will ensure that your students’ educational experience is not negatively affected while you work toward a stronger financial position.

4. If renewed, what is the school’s plan for its next performance certificate term?

This portion of your narrative should discuss plans for the future of your school. Summarize your strategic plan, looking ahead to the upcoming five-year term.

If outstanding concerns remain in any of the areas considered earlier (academic, operational, or financial), this is an appropriate place to explain your action plan and timeline for resolving those concerns. It is particularly important to focus on the measurable results you expect to achieve by specified points in time.

You should also provide information regarding any intention to propose an expansion or replication, programmatic change, or other substantial modification to your school that may occur during the upcoming, five-year term.

Finally, please include in this section a description of any plans you have for disseminating your successes for the benefit of other schools, teachers, and students.



Application Submission Instructions Before submitting your application, please verify that it meets the following checklist:

The application includes a complete title page, table of contents, executive summary and narrative.

The executive summary does not exceed two (2) pages. The executive summary is signed by the school’s board chair and administrator. The narrative does not exceed twenty-five (25) pages. The narrative thoroughly addresses the topics described in the guidance above. Any exhibits are clearly labeled and formatted according to the guidance above.

For data security purposes, the PCSC has established a secure File Transfer Protocol (FTP) site. In order to protect confidential student data, you must submit your completed application and exhibits through the FTP site. Do not submit or send your student level data through any other method (e-mail, file sharing website, etc.). Please follow these steps to submit data through the secure server:

1. Go to https://sldstransfer.boardofed.idaho.gov. Any staff member who has submitted ISEE reports will already have an account in this system through the State Department of Education. If you already have an account, proceed to step two. If you do not have an account, select “Other,” then select “Registration.”

2. Once you have registered, email Andy Mehl ([email protected]), the Office of the State Board of Education’s information technology manager, letting him know that you have registered. He will then approve your access to the “Transfer” option. Once he has approved your request, you will be able to send documents in a secured environment.

When your data is ready to submit, log back in to https://sldstransfer.boardofed.idaho.gov and click on the “Transfer Files” icon. There will be the option to select a file recipient. Scroll down to find Charter Schools Program Manager Kirsten Pochop’s email address ([email protected]). Then you can upload the file and send it. Be aware that you can only send one file at a time. Kirsten will receive an email when the file is received.

The PCSC thanks the National Association of Charter School Authorizers, Core Charter School Renewal Application and Guidance, www.qualitycharters.org for assistance in development of this renewal application and guidance.


Documents

RENEWAL RECOMMENDATION - Charter school · • Foster communication and volunteerism, both within the school and extending to the larger community. Although the standards detailed